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

[Aloysium]

. . . 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 just wanted to add some thoughts on what you say here.
It is all about love - unity through a giving of oneself to what is other.
We are truly sorry when we love the other and realize what our action has done to them.
God forgives us, but it is we who must grow in Christ, grow in the Way He has prepared for us by His incarnation, death and resurrection.
God is all you need to get to heaven
I find the focus on sin to be counter-productive. It can be like the tightening of a spring, growing stronger, the more it is attended to.
Praying, sharing with God ones trials and successes, participating in the Mass and the Eucharist, doing charitable works, and contemplating what has been revealed to us, one will find that the sinfulness sheds. In becoming more Christ-like, one is less apt to sin. Where it is more of a struggle, usually the sinfulness is in place to control the much larger foe of spiritual pride that ignores our reliance on God.

:twocents:

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Thanks, yes “both/and” is a great model for a CCC revision!

Do you remember that definition I presented on another thread from a book I read? He and others define sin as “alienation”. A person who has committed sin and is not sorry is still alienated, they are not in touch with the impact and the harm done by their sin. So, if they ask for forgiveness just to “be right with God” well, one alternative says “they are not forgiven by God if they are not sorry.”

The other alternative is that God is merciful and patient, and forgave before the sin was even committed. The “alienation” is not between God and the person, it is between the person and the person’s connection with his own love of God, the God that is within all of us. A person who sins but is not sorry is alienated from truth, awareness. If he sins again, he does so in blindness and/or lack of awareness, still alienated from the truth.

If a person is not sorry for a sin, they are lacking in conscience. Conscience develops in the human, it takes time. Conscience develops with awareness. Awareness develops with experience, and experience and everything else comes by the grace of God.

Does that make sense, or is it a little fuzzy?

 

[simpleas]

Thanks, yes “both/and” is a great model for a CCC revision!

Do you remember that definition I presented on another thread from a book I read? He and others define sin as “alienation”. A person who has committed sin and is not sorry is still alienated, they are not in touch with the impact and the harm done by their sin. So, if they ask for forgiveness just to “be right with God” well, one alternative says “they are not forgiven by God if they are not sorry.”

The other alternative is that God is merciful and patient, and forgave before the sin was even committed. The “alienation” is not between God and the person, it is between the person and the person’s connection with his own love of God, the God that is within all of us. A person who sins but is not sorry is alienated from truth, awareness. If he sins again, he does so in blindness and/or lack of awareness, still alienated from the truth.

If a person is not sorry for a sin, they are lacking in conscience. Conscience develops in the human, it takes time. Conscience develops with awareness. Awareness develops with experience, and experience and everything else comes by the grace of God.

Does that make sense, or is it a little fuzzy?

Yes it makes sense, although it sort of makes me think that some people would think that if some find forgiveness easier than others that they are in some way on the same level as God, and those not sorry for sin, hate God.

Aloysium mentioned spiritual pride, perhaps that is all it is. People as we know say they believe in God as creator and must be obeyed and so justify all or some acts against other humans who do not share their way of thinking.

Conscience obviously develops through experience and time, some people are quicker to “respond” to another’s hurt, others take time, although there’s a whole host of life difficulties that can get in the way. Communication is a biggy in my experience.

But this thread is about a divine connection that was wounded, maybe there was a time when the first two humans created lived in peace and harmony, makes me want to say, shame they didn’t think to share it with the rest of us! Although I know we are the ones that need to work on it now, we didn’t get it given to us, at least we don’t always think it was given to us, we have to find it, God I mean…

Off I go again…rambling on…

 

[grannymh]

Thanks, yes “both/and” is a great model for a CCC revision!

Revision–great idea. Maybe we can get rid of those annoying ideas about some guy eating organic fruit until his conscience developed.

 

[simpleas]

Revision–great idea. Maybe we can get rid of those annoying ideas about some guy eating organic fruit until his conscience developed.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes it makes sense, although it sort of makes me think that some people would think that if some find forgiveness easier than others that they are in some way on the same level as God, and those not sorry for sin, hate God.

Aloysium mentioned spiritual pride, perhaps that is all it is. People as we know say they believe in God as creator and must be obeyed and so justify all or some acts against other humans who do not share their way of thinking.

Conscience obviously develops through experience and time, some people are quicker to “respond” to another’s hurt, others take time, although there’s a whole host of life difficulties that can get in the way. Communication is a biggy in my experience.

But this thread is about a divine connection that was wounded, maybe there was a time when the first two humans created lived in peace and harmony, makes me want to say, shame they didn’t think to share it with the rest of us! Although I know we are the ones that need to work on it now, we didn’t get it given to us, at least we don’t always think it was given to us, we have to find it, God I mean…

Off I go again…rambling on…

That’s just it, Simpleas. This thread is about a divine connection that was wounded, but at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time. In this scenario, like I relayed in the “language”, God the Father never changed his mind toward man in any way, never disapponted, never angry, never punishing.

The standard catechesis reflects the reality of human guilt. We sin, we feel guilt. We have compulsions, and we mess up, a lot. Certainly, the mind says, these capacities for sin all must be blamed on the human in some way. Thus, the story of Adam and Eve and banishment make sense from the guilt perspective, and this perspective is quite valid.

One alternative emphasizes the literal aspects of the creation story. The “knowledge of good and evil” is certainly an aspect of the human conscience, and when eating the fruit they “realize” they were naked, they developed a conscience rule concerning nudity (among many other things, by deduction). God reacts to the defiance of His will, which is another aspect of the conscience. We react when others break our rules. God punishes Adam and Eve, which is another aspect of the conscience, we are compelled to punish wrongdoing. Indeed, God depicted in that part of the creation story behaves as the human conscience itself! The conscience “loves” and “forgives” conditionally, in accordance with a set of rules.

The alternative is one that begins with the observation of the conscience, from a “true self” perspective. The creation story is looked at allegorically. We have consciences, just as we have emotions, but we are not our consciences. In addition, it is understandable and developmentally appropriate to equate God with the conscience, but just as when we observe our emotions we are no longer caught up in them (have you been reading the meditations lately about St. Therese?) when we observe our conscience we also take a step back from our nature. God in the view of the alternative loves without hesitation and without limit, which is very different than the way the conscience “loves”. God in this alternative loves and forgives unconditionally.

Do we take a step back, or do we take a step in? Whatever the case may be, when in prayer we observe all that comes out of the mind (both thought and emotion) we are taken to a quiet place, a silent place, beyond all the workings of our nature.

Clear as mud, or somewhat clear? Feel free to ask for clarification.

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

That’s just it, Simpleas. This thread is about a divine connection that was wounded, but at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time. In this scenario, like I relayed in the “language”, God the Father never changed his mind toward man in any way, never disapponted, never angry, never punishing.

{snip}

Thanks.

Why is this a reasonable alternative?

It certainly does not seem to be consistent with Genesis nor Church teaching.

 

[grannymh]

That’s just it, Simpleas. This thread is about a divine connection that was wounded, but at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time.

The Catholic Church maintains that the original relationship between Adam the creature and God his Creator was shattered, broken, destroyed, ruined, trashed completely. This is different from wounded

Please note that therefore, this thread is not, repeat not, about a divine connection that was wounded or never wounded.

One alternative emphasizes the allegorical points of the creation story. The “knowledge of good and evil” is certainly an aspect of the human conscience, and when eating the fruit they “realize” they were naked, they developed a conscience rule concerning nudity (among many other things, by deduction).

While, knowing and understanding both good and bad actions is what the human conscience does, the Catholic teaching is that conscience is present as an integral part of human nature.

God reacts to the defiance of His will, which is another aspect of the conscience. We react when others break our rules. God punishes Adam and Eve, which is another aspect of the conscience, we are compelled to punish wrongdoing. Indeed, God depicted in that part of the creation story behaves as the human conscience itself! The conscience “loves” and “forgives” conditionally, in accordance with a set of rules**.**

Those words in bold sound weird to me. They are probably a misunderstanding of the original source which could be an unnamed popular public pied piper .

God behaves as the Divine Person in the first three chapters of Genesis. The non-divine person, the one with a human conscience, maintains his relationship with Divinity by living in free submission to his Creator God.

I will be happy to answer questions about CCC 396 and *CCC *1730.

Readers are welcomed to read all of post 341. My contribution above is in reply to this line in post 341. “Clear as mud, or somewhat clear? Feel free to ask for clarification.”

I provided the needed clarification.

 

[grannymh]

Speaking of clarifications …

Here is the basis for this thread.

From post 1. Three undeniable truths according to the Catholic Church.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

I do not believe that it is necessary to argue about 1. God as Creator.

Truths 2. and 3. are the foundational truths for the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. If I were a teacher, heaven forbid, I would ask my students – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.? Since “alternative” this or that often appears on this thread, this is now the time and place to offer those alternative ideas as answers to the question – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.? Please note that Catholic teachings have the authority to accept or reject answers.

Note to OneSheep.
It is clear that you have a variety of sources. Obviously, some provide Catholic information and some do not. Do you have possible answers to the question – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.?

 

[simpleas]

That’s just it, Simpleas. This thread is about a divine connection that was wounded, but at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time. In this scenario, like I relayed in the “language”, God the Father never changed his mind toward man in any way, never disapponted, never angry, never punishing.

The standard catechesis reflects the reality of human guilt. We sin, we feel guilt. We have compulsions, and we mess up, a lot. Certainly, the mind says, these capacities for sin all must be blamed on the human in some way. Thus, the story of Adam and Eve and banishment make sense from the guilt perspective, and this perspective is quite valid.

One alternative emphasizes the literal aspects of the creation story. The “knowledge of good and evil” is certainly an aspect of the human conscience, and when eating the fruit they “realize” they were naked, they developed a conscience rule concerning nudity (among many other things, by deduction). God reacts to the defiance of His will, which is another aspect of the conscience. We react when others break our rules. God punishes Adam and Eve, which is another aspect of the conscience, we are compelled to punish wrongdoing. Indeed, God depicted in that part of the creation story behaves as the human conscience itself! The conscience “loves” and “forgives” conditionally, in accordance with a set of rules.

The alternative is one that begins with the observation of the conscience, from a “true self” perspective. The creation story is looked at allegorically. We have consciences, just as we have emotions, but we are not our consciences. In addition, it is understandable and developmentally appropriate to equate God with the conscience, but just as when we observe our emotions we are no longer caught up in them (have you been reading the meditations lately about St. Therese?) when we observe our conscience we also take a step back from our nature. God in the view of the alternative loves without hesitation and without limit, which is very different than the way the conscience “loves”. God in this alternative loves and forgives unconditionally.

Do we take a step back, or do we take a step in? Whatever the case may be, when in prayer we observe all that comes out of the mind (both thought and emotion) we are taken to a quiet place, a silent place, beyond all the workings of our nature.

Clear as mud, or somewhat clear? Feel free to ask for clarification.

Thanks.

Yes I have been reading the meditations on St Therese, I think we all can identify with her, also the meditation of the past day have been on the conscience evolving, coincidence?

It’s funny but when you say that God was never angry etc with man, it sort of throws the bible out the window for me, as I’m working through what is seen as literal and Figurative, mostly with the OT.

Thanks.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time. In this scenario, like I relayed in the “language”, God the Father never changed his mind toward man in any way, never disapponted, never angry, never punishing.

The standard catechesis reflects the reality of human guilt. We sin, we feel guilt. We have compulsions, and we mess up, a lot. Certainly, the mind says, these capacities for sin all must be blamed on the human in some way. Thus, the story of Adam and Eve and banishment make sense from the guilt perspective, and this perspective is quite valid.

One alternative emphasizes the literal aspects of the creation story. The “knowledge of good and evil” is certainly an aspect of the human conscience, and when eating the fruit they “realize” they were naked, they developed a conscience rule concerning nudity (among many other things, by deduction). God reacts to the defiance of His will, which is another aspect of the conscience. We react when others break our rules. God punishes Adam and Eve, which is another aspect of the conscience, we are compelled to punish wrongdoing. Indeed, God depicted in that part of the creation story behaves as the human conscience itself! The conscience “loves” and “forgives” conditionally, in accordance with a set of rules.

The alternative is one that begins with the observation of the conscience, from a “true self” perspective. The creation story is looked at allegorically. We have consciences, just as we have emotions, but we are not our consciences. In addition, it is understandable and developmentally appropriate to equate God with the conscience, but just as when we observe our emotions we are no longer caught up in them (have you been reading the meditations lately about St. Therese?) when we observe our conscience we also take a step back from our nature. God in the view of the alternative loves without hesitation and without limit, which is very different than the way the conscience “loves”. God in this alternative loves and forgives unconditionally. . .

What you are proposing sounds like an idea that God is our ultimate true Self to which we would seek to align.
I find it limited and conflicting with the experience of love as a giving to what is other.
The Triune Godhead is transcendent Love, creating us that we may enter into its eternal communion.
Paradise is more than an emotion or joyous state of being.
It is a condition into which we enter when we give of ourselves totally to Love.

We have all met people who have done abhorrent things in their lives,
and have all no doubt read about others who have done worse.
Those sorts of actions are hateful, disgusting and call out for justice.
While I could say that I hate such people, I cannot say I truly know them.
I would hate them only insofar as they personify those certain evil acts.

Salvation is more than a matter of sitting well or feeling peace within myself.
God knows my thoughts, my motivations and the context in which I act.
He loves me and thus shows mercy; I ask for mercy knowing I am undeserving.
Christ died, the innocent Lamb, taking on my sins and their consequences.
The evil that is sin Is minimized in your cosmology; I believe God hates sin; seen for what it is, that is its nature.

 

[cfauster]

… at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time.

That reminds me of something published last month on BioLogos:

“The idea of an abrupt fall from perfection has been widely held in the western church. The tradition represented in today’s Orthodox churches is rather different. There Adam and Eve are pictured as having been created in an immature state and expected to grow. Irenaeus thought that Adam was a young child, intellectually immature, while Athanasius saw our first ancestors as being at the beginning of a history which, with divine guidance, would lead them to full communion with God.”

I think I can see some important truth in such a perspective. But, I also agree when the BioLogos author continues:

“However, this idea of an initially childlike condition of humanity also tends toward a downplaying of the seriousness of the human condition. It is one thing to say that the first humans should not be judged too harshly because of their spiritual immaturity and another not to recognize the extent of the alienation from God that would result from that in later generations.”

Perhaps the most accurate perspective might be a blend of western (Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) views. Traditionally, I think the Lutheran view (going back to Luther himself) is closer to the Catholic one. Nonetheless, the BioLogos author I’m quoting is Lutheran.

The essay from which I’m quoting is at:
biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-original-sins-part-1

 

[OneSheep]

That reminds me of something published last month on BioLogos:

“The idea of an abrupt fall from perfection has been widely held in the western church. The tradition represented in today’s Orthodox churches is rather different. There Adam and Eve are pictured as having been created in an immature state and expected to grow. Irenaeus thought that Adam was a young child, intellectually immature, while Athanasius saw our first ancestors as being at the beginning of a history which, with divine guidance, would lead them to full communion with God.”

I think I can see some important truth in such a perspective. But, I also agree when the BioLogos author continues:

“However, this idea of an initially childlike condition of humanity also tends toward a downplaying of the seriousness of the human condition. It is one thing to say that the first humans should not be judged too harshly because of their spiritual immaturity and another not to recognize the extent of the alienation from God that would result from that in later generations.”

Perhaps the most accurate perspective might be a blend of western (Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) views. Traditionally, I think the Lutheran view (going back to Luther himself) is closer to the Catholic one. Nonetheless, the BioLogos author I’m quoting is Lutheran.

The essay from which I’m quoting is at:
biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-original-sins-part-1

Hi Cfauster,

Thanks for the link. I read a bit of the article, because I was wondering what he sees as the basis for sin. I found this:

It is idolatry—“worship[ing] and serv[ing] the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25)—that is the root sin.

In some sense, serving the creature is serving the creator. God is found in all, so when we serve our neighbor, we serve God. Though idolatry can certainly be a distraction, and as such be the source of alienation from our own focus on God, I have trouble making it a catch-all. Yes, being overly self-serving is problematic, but all creatures are meant to also serve their own bodies to a large degree, or there would be no basis for “love your neighor as yourself”. The drives to take care of ourselves, protect ourselves, are innate/God given.

I find it hard to figure out how people hanging Jesus on the cross can be boiled down to idolatry. The people who hung Jesus did so because they sought justice, their aim was to punish what they saw as a blasphemer. Perhaps you can interject where “idolatry” plays a role.

In addition, how does an original sin affect later generations? Perhaps you could shed light on detail. It depends on a lot of definitions. If it involves some kind of punishment from a wrathful God, then we are in one alternative. if it involves no “fall” at all, but merely the genetic transfer for the capacity to sin from one generation to the next, then that is a different alternative.

Thanks again.

 

[OneSheep]

What you are proposing sounds like an idea that God is our ultimate true Self to which we would seek to align.
I find it limited and conflicting with the experience of love as a giving to what is other.
The Triune Godhead is transcendent Love, creating us that we may enter into its eternal communion.
Paradise is more than an emotion or joyous state of being.
It is a condition into which we enter when we give of ourselves totally to Love.

We have all met people who have done abhorrent things in their lives,
and have all no doubt read about others who have done worse.
Those sorts of actions are hateful, disgusting and call out for justice.
While I could say that I hate such people, I cannot say I truly know them.
I would hate them only insofar as they personify those certain evil acts.

Salvation is more than a matter of sitting well or feeling peace within myself.
God knows my thoughts, my motivations and the context in which I act.
He loves me and thus shows mercy; I ask for mercy knowing I am undeserving.
Christ died, the innocent Lamb, taking on my sins and their consequences.
The evil that is sin Is minimized in your cosmology; I believe God hates sin; seen for what it is, that is its nature.

Hi Aloysium,

Most of what you are saying falls in line with both alternatives, but some of the words change a bit in definition. Sin is never an issue to be minimized.

Your second paragraph demonstrates the activities of the conscience. We see awful behavior, we seek to punish. We naturally feel some hate or resentment toward the evildoer. Because it is natural to want to be “good”, the hate of the image of sin or sinner serves as a guide to good behavior. The conscience is natural, it is God-given.

So, on the one hand we could say that A&E realizing that they were naked show that they defied God, worthy of condemnation, which explains why humans have this curious aspect of the mind and why humans sin. On the other hand, we could instead say that the human realizing he is naked represents that people develop consciences. Such capacity for conscience is a gift. When we know which behaviors are good, and which bad, then we have a guide to future behaviors.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[grannymh]

Note to OneSheep.
It is clear that you have a variety of sources. Obviously, some provide Catholic information and some do not. Do you have possible answers to the question – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.?

The following are three undeniable truths according to the Catholic Church.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
… at least one alternative might include the perspective that the connection was never wounded, but the connection has done nothing but develop over time.

That reminds me of something published last month on BioLogos:

“The idea of an abrupt fall from perfection has been widely held in the western church. The tradition represented in today’s Orthodox churches is rather different. There Adam and Eve are pictured as having been created in an immature state and expected to grow. Irenaeus thought that Adam was a young child, intellectually immature, while Athanasius saw our first ancestors as being at the beginning of a history which, with divine guidance, would lead them to full communion with God.”

I think I can see some important truth in such a perspective. But, I also agree when the BioLogos author continues:

“However, this idea of an initially childlike condition of humanity also tends toward a downplaying of the seriousness of the human condition. It is one thing to say that the first humans should not be judged too harshly because of their spiritual immaturity and another not to recognize the extent of the alienation from God that would result from that in later generations.”

Perhaps the most accurate perspective might be a blend of western (Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) views. Traditionally, I think the Lutheran view (going back to Luther himself) is closer to the Catholic one. Nonetheless, the BioLogos author I’m quoting is Lutheran.

The essay from which I’m quoting is at:
biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-original-sins-part-1

This is really informative to me. I want to tear it apart and respond line by line, even word by word. The vast majority of responses are positive because they illuminate the protocol of the Catholic Church regarding the expression of Divine Revelation in its teachings. I have noticed over time and many posts, that most people are not really interested in Church protocol. Yet, it was protocol which was the definitive tool in a raging battle, many years ago. Currently, the protocol tool needs to be brought up because of all the alternative explanations for a simple action like the Original Sin.

On the other hand, I also want to allow time for posters to respond to the particular question about the differences between points 1. and 2. Please see post 344

 

[grannymh]

That reminds me of something published last month on BioLogos:

“The idea of an abrupt fall from perfection has been widely held in the western church. The tradition represented in today’s Orthodox churches is rather different. There Adam and Eve are pictured as having been created in an immature state and expected to grow. Irenaeus thought that Adam was a young child, intellectually immature, while Athanasius saw our first ancestors as being at the beginning of a history which, with divine guidance, would lead them to full communion with God.”

I think I can see some important truth in such a perspective. But, I also agree when the BioLogos author continues:

“However, this idea of an initially childlike condition of humanity also tends toward a downplaying of the seriousness of the human condition. It is one thing to say that the first humans should not be judged too harshly because of their spiritual immaturity and another not to recognize the extent of the alienation from God that would result from that in later generations.”

Perhaps the most accurate perspective might be a blend of western (Catholic) and eastern (Orthodox) views. Traditionally, I think the Lutheran view (going back to Luther himself) is closer to the Catholic one. Nonetheless, the BioLogos author I’m quoting is Lutheran.

The essay from which I’m quoting is at:
biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-original-sins-part-1

Thank you for the link. At the very top, in brownish/gold color, there is a reference to faith and science. Here is a relevant CAF post.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11385034&postcount=7

 

[OneSheep]

Yes I have been reading the meditations on St Therese, I think we all can identify with her, also the meditation of the past day have been on the conscience evolving, coincidence?

It’s funny but when you say that God was never angry etc with man, it sort of throws the bible out the window for me, as I’m working through what is seen as literal and Figurative, mostly with the OT.

Thanks.

Hmmm. Throw out the Bible? Please do not let me give the impression that there is no room for scripture depicting an angry Father. If nothing else, in a God-is-equal-to-conscience view, it makes perfect sense. To me, we should do nothing less than give honor and respect to the view. Arguably, the perception of an angry Creator is a human theological default (pagan or otherwise) - we look at all the natural destruction in the world and we conclude “God is angry!” makes sense.

Here is something else to consider: There is value in God as the “example” of infinite love, mercy, compassion and patience. However, we humans fall short of such capability most of the time, particularly toward ourselves. We get angry at ourselves.

And then, what good is it to believe that God is not angry at me if the real issue is that I am angry at me? We can relate to angry-God scripture when we are angry; I think it serves a purpose. In the mean time, the OT also has verses about God’s mercy and forgiveness.

whadyathink?

 

[OneSheep]

Speaking of clarifications …

Here is the basis for this thread.

From post 1. Three undeniable truths according to the Catholic Church.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

I do not believe that it is necessary to argue about 1. God as Creator.

Truths 2. and 3. are the foundational truths for the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. If I were a teacher, heaven forbid, I would ask my students – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.? Since “alternative” this or that often appears on this thread, this is now the time and place to offer those alternative ideas as answers to the question – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.? Please note that Catholic teachings have the authority to accept or reject answers.

Note to OneSheep.
It is clear that you have a variety of sources. Obviously, some provide Catholic information and some do not. Do you have possible answers to the question – What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.?

Hi Granny,

I only write in terms of “this is what makes sense to me”. This is what makes sense to one Catholic. I speak for no particular school of thought, but there are a few that I draw from, especially the CCC. I know God and man through prayer and experience mostly.

At first glance, the difference between #2 and #3 is that 2 is from God to man, and 3 is from man to God. What is missing is the relationship with the human and himself. How aware are we of our own anthropology, our capacity to interact with God, our awareness of God interacting with us? How aware are we of the aspects of self that we may identify as “self”, but are merely passing things: emotions, resentments, wants, sexuality, occupation, skills, affiliations, etc.?

God is aware of the whole works. Comparatively speaking, I haven’t a clue what the human is about. There is so much to learn! What I do know is that its all good, that is what I’ve encountered. The human is beautiful.

Does that help?

 

[grannymh]

OneSheep,

Here is a tiny bit of Catholic information about conscience.

These individual quotes are taken from a Zenit news report. Please note the references to the voice of God.
zenit.org/en/articles/denver-archbishop-consciences-have-to-be-formed-not-just-followed

Acting in accord with one’s conscience is important, if that conscience is informed by the voice of God, says Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver.

---

“What has happened with so many Catholics today is that they have come to understand conscience as listening to their own voice,” he said, “rather than listening to the voice of God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture and in Tradition.”

---

“It is important for us to form consciences, especially in our own time when people are told, ‘Well, just follow your conscience,’” he continued. “Most people today do not even know what conscience is, let alone that they are called to form their conscience."

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has more Catholic information about conscience. Please use the Index on page 776, and the Glossary on page 872

For example.

**1777 **Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

**1795 **“Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (*GS *16).