And on Earth peace to people of good will

[LilyM]

If I say “God only forgives if…” I put a limit on God’s mercy. Nothing irrational there. If I say " I forgive unconditionally, but God does not." I am more forgiving than God. That is simply untrue, but not irrational. God’s love is infinite. He loves us more than a mother her child. Do you know what that means? Do you have any children? God would withhold mercy for the sake of “justice”? That is not “forgiving our enemies”.

That’s silly. Human forgiveness is a one way thing.

God’s mercy is different. It is most definitely a two-way street - He can forgive as much as He likes, but unless we accept that forgiveness and show our acceptance by repentance and amendment of life then we will not be fit for salvation or for heaven. And some people do not accept, because they are too attached to their sins to give them up.

And we can never be more forgiving than God, human forgiveness is as different from God’s as human love is from His.

You cannot say that a human parent who never reprimands their child for even the worst misdeed is somehow MORE loving than God, who does rebuke sin. That’s because what the human parent shows is not love, it is misguided over indulgence of the child. This overindulgence will ruin the child ultimately, so it is in fact the opposite of true love as demonstrated by God.

And you cannot say that a human who would never dream of killing a child is somehow MORE merciful than God who permits many many children to die every day. God allows the death of the body but offers eternal life, which makes Him infinitely more merciful than a human who can spare the body but do precious little for the soul.

 

[OneSheep]

Use me instead of Adam as an example if you need to, I know myself better.

So what you are claiming, is precisely that no man is guilty because he doesn’t know what he is doing when he sins?

It depends what you mean by “guilty”. People do stuff, they choose to do stuff, they must take ownership of what they do. They can try to blame what they do on the devil, or what have you, but everything we do, we are responsible for doing. So, regardless of intent, we are all guilty for doing whatever we do. In our world, it is practical to attach penalties to what people do that is hurtful to others, so penalties are meted, and hopefully some type of rehabilitation is offered. But guilt is there, people do hurtful things. Now, do people know what they are doing, and therefore deserve hell? No. Never. Let’s keep working on Darran-posing-as-Adam.

So, Darran, why did you eat from the tree?

 

[Darran]

It depends what you mean by “guilty”. People do stuff, they choose to do stuff, they must take ownership of what they do. They can try to blame what they do on the devil, or what have you, but everything we do, we are responsible for doing. So, regardless of intent, we are all guilty for doing whatever we do. In our world, it is practical to attach penalties to what people do that is hurtful to others, so penalties are meted, and hopefully some type of rehabilitation is offered. But guilt is there, people do hurtful things. Now, do people know what they are doing, and therefore deserve hell? No. Never. Let’s keep working on Darran-posing-as-Adam.

So, Darran, why did you eat from the tree?

The “guilty” that we are talking about is offending God and nothing else.

I think to run this scenario in a straighter line, it’s probably better not to use the scenario of Adam for theological reasons. Fine:

Once upon a time I stole a cake from a poor family.

I did it out of greed because I wanted the cake, even though I knew it was very wrong and I knew they were poor.

Carry on.

 

[OneSheep]

That’s silly. Human forgiveness is a one way thing.

God’s mercy is different. It is most definitely a two-way street - He can forgive as much as He likes, but unless we accept that forgiveness and show our acceptance by repentance and amendment of life then we will not be fit for salvation or for heaven. And some people do not accept, because they are too attached to their sins to give them up.

And we can never be more forgiving than God, human forgiveness is as different from God’s as human love is from His.

You cannot say that a human parent who never reprimands their child for even the worst misdeed is somehow MORE loving than God, who does rebuke sin. That’s because what the human parent shows is not love, it is misguided over indulgence of the child. This overindulgence will ruin the child ultimately, so it is in fact the opposite of true love as demonstrated by God.

And you cannot say that a human who would never dream of killing a child is somehow MORE merciful than God who permits many many children to die every day. God allows the death of the body but offers eternal life, which makes Him infinitely more merciful than a human who can spare the body but do precious little for the soul.

Thanks for posting, Lily. You bring up some important points that tend to get mixed in, but are not central to the discussion. Reprimand is an act of love. God does not banish, but people can unwittingly banish themselves, separate themselves from God’s love by not forgiving others. The mechanism is such: God is in all humans. If I condemn my fellow human, I am blind to the goodness of God in the person, I live in the hell of my own resentment. It is all about me. God is there waiting with open arms.

I don’t know where the killing/death item comes from. I never brought it up. We agree about God being more forgiving than humans.

As far as people being “too attached to their sins to give them up”, this is true. The hell they experience is in the attachment to the sin. God already forgives them, and waits with open arms. If we do not let go of the sin, then we will not experience union with God, but it is not a matter of God punishing non-repentance, it is a matter of natural consequence for choosing attachment to the sin. Example: Drug addiction is hell.

What I am getting at in this thread, though, is that “good will” is always present, but filtered through a limited awareness. We don’t know what we are doing. If you give a specific example, I can demonstrate.

 

[Darran]

As far as people being “too attached to their sins to give them up”, this is true. The hell they experience is in the attachment to the sin. God already forgives them, and waits with open arms. If we do not let go of the sin, then we will not experience union with God, but it is not a matter of God punishing non-repentance, it is a matter of natural consequence for choosing attachment to the sin. Example: Drug addiction is hell.

What I am getting at in this thread, though, is that “good will” is always present, but filtered through a limited awareness. We don’t know what we are doing. If you give a specific example, I can demonstrate.

Use my example. You sound as though you are verging on saying that God is prepared to forgive anyone who repents. That is a fair mile away from what you seemed to put forward for the rest of the thread.

 

[OneSheep]

The “guilty” that we are talking about is offending God and nothing else.

I think to run this scenario in a straighter line, it’s probably better not to use the scenario of Adam for theological reasons. Fine:

Once upon a time I stole a cake from a poor family.

I did it out of greed because I wanted the cake, even though I knew it was very wrong and I knew they were poor.

Carry on.

Okay, so you thought the cake looked good, and you took it. Would you have taken the cake from a close friend? Did you consider that the family would be distressed? Children have less experience, therefore less opportunities for empathy. Were you a child?

 

[Darran]

Okay, so you thought the cake looked good, and you took it. Would you have taken the cake from a close friend?

I don’t know, probably. I just wanted the cake.

Did you consider that the family would be distressed?

Yes, but I chose not to care.

Children have less experience, therefore less opportunities for empathy. Were you a child?

No, I was a fully grown adult.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Maybe a simpler approach to the whole subject could be:

Jesus forgives, and does so under at least the authority that He doesn’t have to.

Jesus tells us to forgive so we should do it. Unconditionally.

Whether God the Father forgives in any given situation is beyond my comprehension.

Amen.

 

[LilyM]

As far as people being “too attached to their sins to give them up”, this is true. The hell they experience is in the attachment to the sin. God already forgives them, and waits with open arms. If we do not let go of the sin, then we will not experience union with God, but it is not a matter of God punishing non-repentance, it is a matter of natural consequence for choosing attachment to the sin. Example: Drug addiction is hell.

What I am getting at in this thread, though, is that “good will” is always present, but filtered through a limited awareness. We don’t know what we are doing. If you give a specific example, I can demonstrate.

How can someone who is not willing to repent or let go of their sins be considered to be ‘of good will’? To me the two are incompatible - someone who is genuinely of good will will be in a state of grace, or else repentant and trying to amend their lives, rather than unrepentant.

Those who are other than of good will in this sense are the ones who cannot experience the gift of God’s peace. So what the angels were saying is perfectly true - peace is something that is only experienced by those who are ‘of good will’ - as evidenced by being either in a state of grace or repentant and trying to amend their lives.

You could say part of that pain of hell - that pain of slavery to sin - is that lack of peace.

 

[OneSheep]

Jesus tells us to forgive so we should do it. Unconditionally.

Whether God the Father forgives in any given situation is beyond my comprehension.

Amen.

Alan, you quipped earlier, and I love it, about “God hating all the same people you do”. This is not just a joke, though, it is a matter of projection, which is inescapable. I only have one frame of reference, and it is me! Even if I try to get into the mind of Alan, to think of why he might do something, it is still me trying to comprehend. So it would seem atrocious, if not incomprehensible, for God to forgive someone that I find particularly detestable.

So, in my eyes, no, it is not simple. It takes hard work, and a lot of humility, but it is possible to forgive unconditionally, by seeing the ignorance that we can all relate to in all misbehavior. Sure, I can try to forgive everyone by sheer willpower, but when I do so, I am just kidding myself. The real forgiveness happens when I do all three steps: pray, get in control, and understand.

I believe that you have found, Alan, that God also loves all the people you do. If this is all-inclusive, then you have “forgiven your shadow” (Jungspeak).

I don’t know, probably. I just wanted the cake.

Yes, but I chose not to care.

So, in this scenario you are a fully grown adult who steals a cake from a poor family, because you “just wanted the cake”. You considered the distress from the family, but you chose not to care. Am I correct in assuming that you chose not to care, not to consider the distress of the family, because if you did focus on the distress, you may reconsider taking the cake? Or is it more likely that you have become desensitized to caring at all, you have learned to ignore pain and distress altogether because it is so frequent, and you are in the mode to care little for your own or other’s feelings at all? In either case, your value of the family’s distress is inhibited. Have I left anything out yet?

How can someone who is not willing to repent or let go of their sins be considered to be ‘of good will’? To me the two are incompatible - someone who is genuinely of good will will be in a state of grace, or else repentant and trying to amend their lives, rather than unrepentant.

Those who are other than of good will in this sense are the ones who cannot experience the gift of God’s peace. So what the angels were saying is perfectly true - peace is something that is only experienced by those who are ‘of good will’ - as evidenced by being either in a state of grace or repentant and trying to amend their lives.

You could say part of that pain of hell - that pain of slavery to sin - is that lack of peace.

I like your logical approach. A person enslaved by their passions is not going to experience peace, period. Good point. But the Gloria is worship, it is a prayer. Why would I not wish peace on people who are not of “good will”? (And as you may recall, I think there is always “good will”)

But let us meet minds on “good will”. Let us take the example of the fellow that shot that congressman in Arizona last year (or was it 2011?). In his eyes, the congresswoman was evil. His good intent was to rid the world of the evil. For the rest of us, the guy was out of his mind, but the truth is that many people on both extremes of the political spectrum would not care a bit if their most hated politician was shot. They are blinded by their condemnation.

Now, is “good intent” the same as “good will”? Or does “good will” require, in addition, that the will is guided by a perfectly aware individual, one that sees the good in all people and behaves accordingly? In that case, there would be no one of “good will”, at least not in a complete sense, because we all have our blindness to deal with, at least some of the time.

When I work at it and pray for those who hurt others, I can always find good intent. I equate “good will” with “good intent”, and then the term “good will” is all-inclusive. Are you following my thinking? How do you define “good will”?

And, now that you see my definition, I can answer the question. Why would someone of “good will” not repent? Let me give an example. Jenny hears Wilma gossiping about her, spreading lies, and confronts her, giving her a big slap across the face. If Jenny admits what she does was wrong, in her eyes it may seem that she is giving in to injustice, that her distribution of punishment was in error. But her internal rulebook says “Wilma was wrong, she deserved to be slapped.” The “good will” part of it is that Jenny is intending to correct a misbehavior, her blindness is that the repentance of the slapping means that she was “in the wrong” for wanting respect. She is also blind, of course, of Wilma’s value, because she has not forgiven.

Now, would you say there is no “good will” in her wanting to be right? We can address that too.

 

[Darran]

So, in this scenario you are a fully grown adult who steals a cake from a poor family, because you “just wanted the cake”. You considered the distress from the family, but you chose not to care. Am I correct in assuming that you chose not to care, not to consider the distress of the family, because if you did focus on the distress, you may reconsider taking the cake?

Or is it more likely that you have become desensitized to caring at all, you have learned to ignore pain and distress altogether because it is so frequent, and you are in the mode to care little for your own or other’s feelings at all? In either case, your value of the family’s distress is inhibited. Have I left anything out yet?

No, I chose not to care because it conflicted with my conscience. I willed to subdue my conscience so that it wouldn’t get in the way of me stealing this cake. I knew it was very wrong, but I willed it anyway. Therefore I willed the opposite of what is right. Therefore I willed evil. Therefore I mortally sinned.

 

[OneSheep]

No, I chose not to care because it conflicted with my conscience. I willed to subdue my conscience so that it wouldn’t get in the way of me stealing this cake. I knew it was very wrong, but I willed it anyway. Therefore I willed the opposite of what is right. Therefore I willed evil. Therefore I mortally sinned.

I think that you would agree that if you were to simply find the cake on the side of the street, taking it would be of no consequence, well, not obviously. So the wanting of the cake is not the issue. The act of ignoring your conscience is key, but also awareness of the value of people you distressed. Would you be willing change the scenario to that of stealing the cake from some people you really loved?, or does the scenario only work if the victims are more distant? I know this is tedious, please be patient. I am thinking that this may be leading to something to do with Adam, but I don’t know where this is going yet.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sure, I can try to forgive everyone by sheer willpower, but when I do so, I am just kidding myself. The real forgiveness happens when I do all three steps: pray, get in control, and understand.

That’s a good step. I also found it useful to avoid even “seeing” sin in the first place. I see destruction, or anger even, but not sin. Then I don’t have anything to forgive.

I believe that you have found, Alan, that God also loves all the people you do. If this is all-inclusive, then you have “forgiven your shadow” (Jungspeak).

An excellent point! Thank you!

Alan

 

[Darran]

I think that you would agree that if you were to simply find the cake on the side of the street, taking it would be of no consequence, well, not obviously. So the wanting of the cake is not the issue. The act of ignoring your conscience is key, but also awareness of the value of people you distressed. Would you be willing change the scenario to that of stealing the cake from some people you really loved?, or does the scenario only work if the victims are more distant? I know this is tedious, please be patient. I am thinking that this may be leading to something to do with Adam, but I don’t know where this is going yet.

Onesheep please, if you let this lead eventually to Adam you’ll have missed every point along the way. We know instinctivly that things are wrong, when we act (specifically, will) against the conscience (completely putting aside ANY faith formation) we sin. Always and always. To say it again, when we believe something is sin (EVEN IF it isn’t) we are guilty of sin if we will it. We don’t need to be omnipotent in order to do it, that is what you’re heading towards and that’s something I’ve already explained - The culpability increases when one is more aware, but as long as someone is aware in the absolute slightest then they are still culpable.

It would seem that the source of this is that your way of forgiving someone is actually to deny and excuse their sin, in which case you aren’t actually forgiving anyone by saying “they did no wrong”. You would have nothing to forgive then! That is kidding yourself.

Please, just acknowledge that there is such thing as sin like anyone with half a brain, reclaim your Catholicism and stop argueing. You have a theory that you’re holding to against logic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It would seem that the source of this is that your way of forgiving someone is actually to deny and excuse their sin, in which case you aren’t actually forgiving anyone by saying “they did no wrong”. You would have nothing to forgive then! That is kidding yourself.

I haven’t read all the lengthy posts in this thread but maybe you’re thinking about me. I’m the one who said that I find it useful to see no sin in the first place.

Example: I see a man stab a woman. I have seen destruction, but was it sin? Mortal sin? How in the WORLD am I supposed to know if I don’t know the details of whether it was with full knowledge and consent? Maybe the woman drew a gun on the man; maybe the man is hallucinating and thought she was a monster. I don’t know, and neither do you, whether an actual sin has been committed. That’s why Jesus said to leave the judging to God, who can make a judgment that is right and just.

Let’s see what Jesus might have to say about judging each other based on appearances:

John 7:24
"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.”

How about St. Paul?

Rom 14:13
Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

Why on earth is this so complicated?

Need more examples? Check out a few advertisements (intended to be funny but thought provoking) by some mortgage company, about judging on appearances: Don’t Judge too Quickly – Ameriquest … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5abaO1-e58c

… like anyone with half a brain, reclaim your Catholicism and stop argueing.

If I were judging based on appearances, I’d say it appears you just sinned right here where the whole world can see it… Now I’m not saying you did because I don’t know whether you did it with full knowledge and consent… But let’s compare your statement against what our Lord told us:

Matt 5:22**
“… and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”

This, my friend, is how it is to be judged on appearances. If I saw sin like you say I should, then I’d warn you that you should go to confession now or you’ll be headed for fiery Gehenna.
http://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif

Do I really think so? No. You’re just another passionate, argumentative poster among many others. You are probably trying to do a spiritual act of mercy by calling other posters fools.

Now you may decide for yourself. Play God, or let God do His job and we do ours?

Alan**

 

[fred_conty]

We live for and in Jesus Christ. We have the divine indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And those who not yet attained the divine indwelling are candidtes for it according to the wishes of Jesus by baptism. This is the profound respect that is due to everyone created by the Father. When we recognize that then the words of Jesus and St. Stephen, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” will become everyone’s prayer. For we wish for the salvation and happiness of everyone that Jesus died for. “How can we love God whom we do not see if we don’t love our neighbor whom we do see.” The first act of love toward Jesus in our neighbor is forgiving Jesus. Jesus is everywhere, all around us. To hold it against our neighbor is to hold it against Jesus. On the day Jesus died, he answered his accusers not in a scornful way, or a hateful way. He was gentle and controled in his responses to everyone, even the guards who spit in his face.

Just a thought of about making peace thu a forgiving spirit, the Holy Spirit.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

We live for and in Jesus Christ. We have the divine indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And those who not yet attained the divine indwelling are candidtes for it according to the wishes of Jesus by baptism. This is the profound respect that is due to everyone created by the Father. When we recognize that then the words of Jesus and St. Stephen, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” will become everyone’s prayer. For we wish for the salvation and happiness of everyone that Jesus died for. “How can we love God whom we do not see if we don’t love our neighbor whom we do see.” The first act of love toward Jesus in our neighbor is forgiving Jesus. Jesus is everywhere, all around us. To hold it against our neighbor is to hold it against Jesus. On the day Jesus died, he answered his accusers not in a scornful way, or a hateful way. He was gentle and controled in his responses to everyone, even the guards who spit in his face.

Just a thought of about making peace thu a forgiving spirit, the Holy Spirit.

 

[OneSheep]

Onesheep please, if you let this lead eventually to Adam you’ll have missed every point along the way. We know instinctivly that things are wrong, when we act (specifically, will) against the conscience (completely putting aside ANY faith formation) we sin. Always and always. To say it again, when we believe something is sin (EVEN IF it isn’t) we are guilty of sin if we will it. We don’t need to be omnipotent in order to do it, that is what you’re heading towards and that’s something I’ve already explained - The culpability increases when one is more aware, but as long as someone is aware in the absolute slightest then they are still culpable.

It would seem that the source of this is that your way of forgiving someone is actually to deny and excuse their sin, in which case you aren’t actually forgiving anyone by saying “they did no wrong”. You would have nothing to forgive then! That is kidding yourself.

Please, just acknowledge that there is such thing as sin like anyone with half a brain, reclaim your Catholicism and stop argueing. You have a theory that you’re holding to against logic.

Your tone has become rather condemning. When we condemn, we are blind to the value and goodness of the condemned, and we justify bad behavior. Condemnation does not lead to awareness. Do you know who I am? No. Would you treat a friend this way? I would guess not. No, I am just like the family you stole from in the scenario. You don’t see my value, and because of this, you don’t know what you are doing.

Condemnation is that instantaneous. We can condemn someone for simply having something that we don’t, because something in our rulebook says “I should be the one that has that”, and we take the cake because “they don’t deserve to have it.”

Now, I could wait for your repentance, which may never come, and hold a grudge against you for the rest of my life, or I could forgive, which I can easily do, because I know that you don’t know what you are doing, you are momentarily blind (only slightly) to my value.

(all right, it’s no big deal, I didn’t get my feelings hurt, you just gave me the opportunity to make a point, sorry about the sermon)

I had assumed that you wouldn’t insult your friends, but on the other hand, let us pretend that you would. And given that “we treat others the way we treat ourselves”, you would in this scenario be pretty hard on yourself too. As a result, you would **universally ** find little value in the human, which again underscores that you would not know what you are doing. This is not “relativism”, right is right and wrong is wrong. It is realism, people behave within the confines of their own ignorance. Condemnation, though functional, creates a blindness, it leads to misperception. As the Jesuit priest/psychotherapist Anthony de Mello said, “If you feel any negativity toward anyone, you are living in an illusion.”

I am not talking about holding people accountable for what they do. That is already a given. Just because we understand why people do things, that is no reason to let them off the hook in this world. I am talking about forgiveness, and that every person can be forgiven in light of the fact that they behave badly because of ignorance. And since God knows our ignorance, he forgives us before we even ask. It is like, when we sin, and hang on to resentment, we lock ourselves in our little room and stew in our wrath or addiction or what have you. God waits patiently, outside the door, waiting for us to realize that it is not so nice to have the door closed. That is the God I know. And the people I know, when they are aware, choose God every time.

And, by the way, you really have no idea why the story of Adam may relate to where the cake story was going. Can we pick up where we left off? I wanted to know if you would have stolen the cake from a friend or relatives you cared about, and you did not answer.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I am not talking about holding people accountable for what they do. That is already a given. Just because we understand why people do things, that is no reason to let them off the hook in this world.

I just want to clarify that by “accountable,” you are talking about the world and not the spirit. That’s fine and I have no problem with it. But if you’re talking about holding them accountable from a position of sin then I have concerns.

I find that especially when it comes to parish politics in the realm of implementing and maintaining stewardship programs, “accountability” is invariably a code word for “quid pro quo,” or worse, getting “even” with someone.

Jesus’s entire actions on earth was to remove our “accountability” for sin. The price of sin is death, so if we are to be “held accountable” for our sins, then I don’t see what Jesus actually accomplished by becoming Word Incarnate.

And, by the way, you really have no idea why the story of Adam may relate to where the cake story was going.

I used to get this from one of my kids until he grew out of it. Based on a topic or line of reasoning, he’d say he doesn’t want to hear about it and shut me off. Especially when it was a topic I knew he didn’t like, I would never approach him with something not interesting or useful – and those times he didn’t shut me off he would be fascinated by what I had to say. So it would come across as, “I don’t trust you enough to give you one minute of my life to hear what obviously worthless trash you want to tell me.”

Alan

 

[Darran]

I haven’t read all the lengthy posts in this thread but maybe you’re thinking about me. I’m the one who said that I find it useful to see no sin in the first place.

Don’t worry Alan, I’m not talking about you. Having half a brain is a simple observation, I would love to be proven wrong.

You are saying Onesheep, that even sin is goodwilled and if it isn’t, that it is subjective. For the love of God, if 4 pages wasn’t enough for you to redefine the statement that you were trying to make I don’t know what is. If I misunderstand what you are saying for this long then it isn’t exactly my fault for not being told what it is you are actually saying, I have asked you to explain your particular stance a number of times.

Am I condemning? Ofcourse I am, just as the scriptures command me. “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him”. You are teaching if not an absolute, then a boarderline heresy. Stop trying to explain it and simply weigh it and understand. I fail to see how you’re so sure that I have sinned when you claimed that relativism is true.

Supposedly John the Baptist is the biggest sinner in the world then, according to the logic you’ve been using, yet he was the greatest prophet of the Old Testament. Presummably Jesus sinned in rebuking people! You’re saying now that you acknowledge sin as sin and that ignorance reduces culpability. Alleluia! Why would you stand and argue with me all this time when that’s exactly what I’ve been saying? Have you read my posts at all? Have you misunderstood me? Why didn’t you ask me to explain like I prompted?

This is ridiculous.