Can we find St. Augustine's good intent?

[Sirach2]

I find it very difficult to “promptly forget my failings”, and I think this is the same for most people.

I can agree with you there, for the most part. When we learn to discipline the mind and reject thoughts of despair, unworthiness, worthlessness, and overcome them with positive scripture verses that are all over the place in the psalms, we take a giant step toward humility and find joy in the Lord’s loving mercy to us.

The devil is called “Accuser of the Brethren” and he tries to inject negative thoughts through our mind to bring us down. We overcome, as Jesus did in the desert, with scriptures or thoughts that oppose that line of thinking.

 

[fhansen]

So, to follow Augustine’s path, the next question is: “Why does man desire complete autonomy?” *Or, specifically, “What is the good intent of man desiring complete autonomy?” *You and I would have to admit that there is a lot of ignorance involved in wanting complete autonomy in the first place, because life apart from God is impossible. *And actually, the whole aspect of individuality and oneness with God is such a mystery it is beyond the scope of discussion, and is best described by imagery, I think. *But for some reason, we all have this desire for autonomy. *What is the “good intent” behind it? *I think it is addressed in the Gospel. *

So, two questions:*

1.Why does man want to “be like God”? *This is a different question than the autonomy question. *And by “Why” I mean, inspired by Augustine, “what is the good intent of wanting to be like God?”. * **

1. What is the limitation (probably in the form of ignorance, lack of awareness) behind such an endeavor?

For me, that’s kinda the granddaddy of all questions. If God made all things good, then why did Adam sin? To be God is the one thing man could not have -at least the one thing that constituted a higher good than himself-and it was certainly a desirable position, to say the least. But why did man covet it for himself? And Adam proceeded to make the one mistake that only an imperfect being could make-he actually, for all practical purposes, determined that he could be God, a most unreasonable proposition. All sin is said to oppose reason to some extent or another. Anyway, I don’t know if pride came*first and caused the act of disobedience, or if pride was the result. While self-love is a good, pride is a sin, & nothing that Adam & Eve should’ve been created with. They were also influenced by another being, a situation which is replayed in human sin today. Maybe Augustine would’ve never been tempted without peer pressure.

Man needs God. He’s dependent on God. Adam & Eve made a conscious decision to reject this relationship, to refuse to acknowledge this dependency. Each of us need to learn this lesson of dependency for ourselves now-that’s the purpose of this life the way I see it. But dependency, especially dependency on another being for ones very existence, is a scary thought. Maybe that thought was too painful for man, and for Lucifer before them; maybe it was easier to reject the Sustainer of life than to live in fear of Him. The Catechism tells us that trust died in mans heart at the fall. If man had not yet learned to trust God, because he didn’t yet understand or appreciate the value of love or the extent of His love, then maybe a healthy fear of God (a good) could transform into an unhealthy fear, a fear that gives birth to pride, the antidote, however denial-ridden and unreasonably obstinate it may be, to living with the consciousness of a god that could wipe us out with a mere thought. In any case, with OS God was effectively eliminated-that’s the essence of pride, no God before me. And that’s why we’re born with God as only a vestigial memory at best, which indicates an injustice, a mark of OS.

So we end up in a world where pride reigns, where self-assertion and its accomplice, self-righteousness, rather than humility before a God-inspired righteousness, actually humility before God, rules the day. Sin is less of a decision for us now, it comes more naturally as a result of the door being opened by Adam; mans’ opinion is the sole determiner of his “righteousness”, and sin results.

So, yes, there had to be a perceived “good” for Augustine. A ‘good’ that apparently too easily outranked the ‘wrong’ to a conscience that was already compromised, already in rebellion against the God it wouldn’t or in any case didn’t consciously recognize.*

Just a few thoughts and speculations, maybe more than the topic called for.

 

[OneSheep]

I can agree with you there, for the most part. When we learn to discipline the mind and reject thoughts of despair, unworthiness, worthlessness, and overcome them with positive scripture verses that are all over the place in the psalms, we take a giant step toward humility and find joy in the Lord’s loving mercy to us.

The devil is called “Accuser of the Brethren” and he tries to inject negative thoughts through our mind to bring us down. We overcome, as Jesus did in the desert, with scriptures or thoughts that oppose that line of thinking.

Well, you are describing exactly how things are supposed to work in the human, I think. We see hurtful stuff happen, or we experience condemnation from our parents or others when we behave in certain ways, and we set up an internal rulebook. When we see someone break the rule, then that person is temporarily the subject of some negative thinking on my part. If I break my own rule, I am subject to some negative thinking also, from myself. The rule may be as simple as “do efficient work”. If someone else does a sloppy job, that person is automatically the subject of my negative thinking. Same thing happens if I do inefficient work.

The system functions; I think this is the way our conscience is formed. The negative thinking is meant to motivate behavior, because the negative thinking communicates non-acceptance, and we all want acceptance. I really think that this is the ego involved here, but the reactions we have are so universal and so automatic (subject to intervention of will) that I truly believe that our brains are pre-wired to work this way. The only thing missing in the newborn child is the content of the rulebook, but human experience and motive and hurt are so universal, that our rulebooks are essentially drawn (I am comfortable with absolutely drawn) by our Creator, with some minor differences between individuals. For example, pretty much everyone thinks that stealing is bad. Whether or not going over the speed limit is bad is going to depend on the individual. In any case, here is finding a “good intent” behind negative self-talk. Do you follow my reasoning?

It seems that if we carry Augustine’s methodology a step deeper, we can continue to find good intent. But maybe there are examples where “good intent” cannot be found? What do you think?

 

[fhansen]

Well, you are describing exactly how things are supposed to work in the human, I think. We see hurtful stuff happen, or we experience condemnation from our parents or others when we behave in certain ways, and we set up an internal rulebook. When we see someone break the rule, then that person is temporarily the subject of some negative thinking on my part. If I break my own rule, I am subject to some negative thinking also, from myself. The rule may be as simple as “do efficient work”. If someone else does a sloppy job, that person is automatically the subject of my negative thinking. Same thing happens if I do inefficient work.

The system functions; I think this is the way our conscience is formed. The negative thinking is meant to motivate behavior, because the negative thinking communicates non-acceptance, and we all want acceptance. I really think that this is the ego involved here, but the reactions we have are so universal and so automatic (subject to intervention of will) that I truly believe that our brains are pre-wired to work this way. The only thing missing in the newborn child is the content of the rulebook, but human experience and motive and hurt are so universal, that our rulebooks are essentially drawn (I am comfortable with absolutely drawn) by our Creator, with some minor differences between individuals. For example, pretty much everyone thinks that stealing is bad. Whether or not going over the speed limit is bad is going to depend on the individual. In any case, here is finding a “good intent” behind negative self-talk. Do you follow my reasoning?

It seems that if we carry Augustine’s methodology a step deeper, we can continue to find good intent. But maybe there are examples where “good intent” cannot be found? What do you think?

But aren’t we called to something higher anyway, a higher morality? Otherwise wouldn’t we be reduced to asking whether or not child sacrifice is wrong in the absolute sense, or only wrong if a society condemns rather than condones it?

 

[OneSheep]

For me, that’s kinda the granddaddy of all questions. If God made all things good, then why did Adam sin? To be God is the one thing man could not have -at least the one thing that constituted a higher good than himself-and it was certainly a desirable position, to say the least. But why did man covet it for himself? And Adam proceeded to make the one mistake that only an imperfect being could make-he actually, for all practical purposes, determined that he could be God, a most unreasonable proposition. All sin is said to oppose reason to some extent or another. Anyway, I don’t know if pride came*first and caused the act of disobedience, or if pride was the result. While self-love is a good, pride is a sin, & nothing that Adam & Eve should’ve been created with. They were also influenced by another being, a situation which is replayed in human sin today. Maybe Augustine would’ve never been tempted without peer pressure.

Lots to address here. Self-love is often included in what we call “pride”, but for our discussion, let’s address the other aspects. I think pride is a word that needs to be broken down, otherwise it becomes very difficult to discuss it. I think it can be broken down this way, but feel free to break it down more, add more or lump some things I separate:

“Pride” is:

1. The desire for dominance
2. The desire for control (closely related to #1)
3. The desire for autonomy
4. The desire for popularity (status)
5. The capacity for defiance (essentially part of, or the same as, #3)
6. Love of self (already addressed)

I think we can find the “good intent” of Adam’s act, but let’s say, for the moment, that Adam’s intent was bad, and that he wanted to “be like God” because of “pride”. Which of these desires do you think was working in Adam at the time? Of course this is speculative, but I am still using the Augustine methodology.

.
So, yes, there had to be a perceived “good” for Augustine. A ‘good’ that apparently too easily outranked the ‘wrong’ to a conscience that was already compromised, already in rebellion against the God it wouldn’t or in any case didn’t consciously recognize.*

Just a few thoughts and speculations, maybe more than the topic called for.

Lots of different things to find “good intent” for there. I think the bottom line is pride, though, and I think the path of the investigation continues above. I agree with you, at the moment the “good” Augustine saw outweighed the wrong. And I also agree that God was not in his mind at the moment. I do think that rules were in his mind at the moment, and that he wanted to feel some freedom from their constraint.

But aren’t we called to something higher anyway, a higher morality? Otherwise wouldn’t we be reduced to asking whether or not child sacrifice is wrong in the absolute sense, or only wrong if a society condemns rather than condones it?

I am definitely with you on this, though we may have a different approach to aspects of the conclusion. It seems to me that the “higher calling” is really ingrained in all of us. I am just breaking down, a little, what that miracle looks like. I think that the fact that all of us know this “higher calling” is an understandable result of all the impulses we are born with. All of us value some material goods. All of us feel sad when someone takes some material good away from us. Those capacities and values come from our creator. All of us are born with the desire for justice, to correct what we see as hurtful behavior. It only follows that we are going to have this universal law: “do not steal”. Does it come from God, even with this seemingly arbitrary construct? To me: yes, absolutely. God communicates this law through all faiths, through all of us.

 

[fhansen]

Lots to address here. Self-love is often included in what we call “pride”, but for our discussion, let’s address the other aspects. I think pride is a word that needs to be broken down, otherwise it becomes very difficult to discuss it. I think it can be broken down this way, but feel free to break it down more, add more or lump some things I separate:

“Pride” is:

1. The desire for dominance
2. The desire for control (closely related to #1)
3. The desire for autonomy
4. The desire for popularity (status)
5. The capacity for defiance (essentially part of, or the same as, #3)
6. Love of self (already addressed)

When the Church uses the term “pride” she’s viewing it only in a negative sense, as in “arrogance”, I suppose. In this particular sense, pride could be defined as the opposite of humility. Humility is considered to be the pathway to God; according to scripture He exalts the humble and opposes the proud. And human pride inherently opposes God, the very knowledge and love of Him. It’s the reason why man prefers himself to God, as the Catechism puts it, or it actually *is *that preference perhaps. Maybe pride kills God so my ego may live.

I think we can find the “good intent” of Adam’s act, but let’s say, for the moment, that Adam’s intent was bad, and that he wanted to “be like God” because of “pride”. Which of these desires do you think was working in Adam at the time? Of course this is speculative, but I am still using the Augustine methodology.

Wanting to be like God, by itself, is not bad. According to the Catechism man was destined to be like God, but on God’s terms. Wanting to be like God, or to be God, actually, apart from and not in accordance with God, is the “bad” intent-because ultimately it’s ruinous to human nature/human life as it was intended to be-it’s unnatural, IOW.

Lots of different things to find “good intent” for there. I think the bottom line is pride, though, and I think the path of the investigation continues above. I agree with you, at the moment the “good” Augustine saw outweighed the wrong. And I also agree that God was not in his mind at the moment. I do think that rules were in his mind at the moment, and that he wanted to feel some freedom from their constraint.

Yes, Adam wanted freedom from any and all limitations as well, not even the one commandment God gave him, which, in the end, was nothing more or less than a commandment to obey Him. In fact the Catechism teaches that all subsequent sin is intrinsically related to and flows from that first act of disobedience of God, from man’s separating himself from Gods’ authority, i.e. from man’s separating himself from God.

 

[OneSheep]

When the Church uses the term “pride” she’s viewing it only in a negative sense, as in “arrogance”, I suppose.

Yes, Adam wanted freedom from any and all limitations as well, not even the one commandment God gave him, which, in the end, was nothing more or less than a commandment to obey Him. In fact the Catechism teaches that all subsequent sin is intrinsically related to and flows from that first act of disobedience of God, from man’s separating himself from Gods’ authority, i.e. from man’s separating himself from God.

The “separating himself from God” part is tricky, I think it can only be said metaphorically, or perhaps as a description of a sentiment. Paul says that nothing can separate us from the love of God, and I lean that direction. “The palm of His hand” metaphor works for me. Thinking that I am separate in some way from God is an illusion. Separation from God is non-existence. But I understand the idea. It seems like we are pushing God away. Can’t be done, I don’t think.

“Arrogance” is a great challenge to find good intent. Negative reaction, though, is the result of a demonstration of some behavior we resent. Augustine’s methodology, finding the good intent in spite of our negative reaction (i.e., to a murderer) can still be applied, or can it? Let’s give it a try!

So, let’s start with a behavior that we can commonly describe as “arrogant”, except we are going to try to find good intent.

Let’s say that Adam says to God, “I don’t need you, and I am not going to obey you. In fact, I am more important than you are.” Would that be a demonstration of what we could commonly describe as arrogance? Let me know. Then we can work on good intent.

 

[fhansen]

The “separating himself from God” part is tricky, I think it can only be said metaphorically, or perhaps as a description of a sentiment. Paul says that nothing can separate us from the love of God, and I lean that direction. “The palm of His hand” metaphor works for me. Thinking that I am separate in some way from God is an illusion. Separation from God is non-existence. But I understand the idea. It seems like we are pushing God away. Can’t be done, I don’t think.

Well, I think it *is *done, if the concept of hell has any meaning. While we can’t '“live, or move, or have our being” (Acts 17:28) without God, we can nonetheless think we don’t need Him; we can deny Him, hate Him, mentally shake our fists at Him. Anyway, Adam & Eve did, indeed, effectively separate humankind from God and that’s why the Atonement (at-one-ment) is necessary in order to reconcile man with God, so they may commune again, God’s spirit living and guiding within as was intended in the beginning.

“Arrogance” is a great challenge to find good intent. Negative reaction, though, is the result of a demonstration of some behavior we resent. Augustine’s methodology, finding the good intent in spite of our negative reaction (i.e., to a murderer) can still be applied, or can it? Let’s give it a try!

So, let’s start with a behavior that we can commonly describe as “arrogant”, except we are going to try to find good intent.

Let’s say that Adam says to God, “I don’t need you, and I am not going to obey you. In fact, I am more important than you are.” Would that be a demonstration of what we could commonly describe as arrogance? Let me know. Then we can work on good intent.

I’m not sure that arrogance is the perfect word for it. What you described, however, is what pride is “made of”, IMO. Either way the good intent, I would think, is that Adam thinks he may, just maybe, be able to find more fulfillment, more happiness, more life, if free from God and any constraints God may place on Him, any constraints that relationship may imply.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not sure that arrogance is the perfect word for it. What you described, however, is what pride is “made of”, IMO. Either way the good intent, I would think, is that Adam thinks he may, just maybe, be able to find more fulfillment, more happiness, more life, if free from God and any constraints God may place on Him, any constraints that relationship may imply.

I agree with your assessment. The human wants freedom. We also want to be in control of our destinies. Arguably, all of God’s creatures have the same desires. If someone says “you can’t do that”, then we have some hesitation.

It could be, too, that Adam even resented God, ridiculous as it may seem. It is quite natural to resent, a little, those who put constraints on our lives. I think it takes some wisdom and some ownership to accept the constraints of those who have authority. I think resentment blinds us to the good intents of others; resentment blinds our empathy. Is this your experience?

Would you say that Adam was blind to God’s goodness at the moment he defied Him, that Adam was well-intended, but was rather ignorant of the impact of his actions? He and Eve doubted God. Do you suppose that this doubt of authority, this defiance, is what the writer of Genesis was showing to be especially negative?

 

[OneSheep]

Along the same lines of this topic, I just ran across something about Thomas Aquinas’ theology.

Apparently, Aquinas explained that the seven deadly sins were an excessive use of a healthy human activity, that the sin was in the excessive use of a healthy energy, not in the healthy energy itself.

Now, when I hear something like this, my first reaction may still lead to blame. But Augustine’s methodology still applies, I think. The next question would be “What is the good intent behind excessive use of a healthy energy?”

For example, let’s take drug addiction, which we can all agree is a sad state to be in. Or perhaps the investor or businessman who cares more about getting a 2% higher return than he does the lives that are impacted by his decisions, making his whole life revolve about getting more bucks. Can we find the good intent behind such excesses?

If we can find good intent, even in these cases, is there anywhere that we can still direct our blame? Is there something about the human that is left to condemn?

 

[fhansen]

Along the same lines of this topic, I just ran across something about Thomas Aquinas’ theology.

Apparently, Aquinas explained that the seven deadly sins were an excessive use of a healthy human activity, that the sin was in the excessive use of a healthy energy, not in the healthy energy itself.

Now, when I hear something like this, my first reaction may still lead to blame. But Augustine’s methodology still applies, I think. The next question would be “What is the good intent behind excessive use of a healthy energy?”

For example, let’s take drug addiction, which we can all agree is a sad state to be in. Or perhaps the investor or businessman who cares more about getting a 2% higher return than he does the lives that are impacted by his decisions, making his whole life revolve about getting more bucks. Can we find the good intent behind such excesses?

If we can find good intent, even in these cases, is there anywhere that we can still direct our blame? Is there something about the human that is left to condemn?

Of course there is. Our choice is still between doing the right or wrong thing; we’re still morally responsible beings. If, for example, the businessman has allowed his valid desire for gain to become a greed so powerful that he, say, endeavors to kill a competitor, then he’s failed to love as he should in an obvious way. All sin is just such a failure, in some way or another, to place love first. Hell could be said to be the ultimate rejection of and there for the absence of Love. And God’s purpose is to engender love in us, which is why the first and greatest commandments are what they are.

I’m still planning on addressing the previous post, BTW.

 

[OneSheep]

If we can find good intent, even in these cases, is there anywhere that we can still direct our blame? Is there something about the human that is left to condemn?

Of course there is. Our choice is still between doing the right or wrong thing; we’re still morally responsible beings. If, for example, the businessman has allowed his valid desire for gain to become a greed so powerful that he, say, endeavors to kill a competitor, then he’s failed to love as he should in an obvious way. All sin is just such a failure, in some way or another, to place love first. Hell could be said to be the ultimate rejection of and there for the absence of Love. And God’s purpose is to engender love in us, which is why the first and greatest commandments are what they are.

I’m still planning on addressing the previous post, BTW.

Well, let’s say that sin is a failure to love someone else, God, and/or self completely. Augustine said that sin is caused by a love of something: material, power, protection, etc., which could fall under love of self. So the question to be asked, by the Augustinian method, would be “why do people fail to love others/God/self?”

And yes, there is always something to condemn in terms of actions, it is our nature to do so. That is what Augustine addresses straight-on. We condemn murder, we condemn theft, we condemn those acts which are hurtful to others. Augustine takes it to the next level. To me, when asking “why”, we come to understand people’s motives, and to that degree we understand, we can include, again, the sinner’s humanity.

I think Jesus did this from the cross. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” is likely an inspiration for Augustine’s quest. To me, “For they know not what they do” is an explanation that does not require any modern psychology. It says it all, really. When we sin, we don’t know what we are doing.

Now, it could be interpreted that Jesus condemns man’s ignorance. But in the context of the verse, “Forgive them” being His request, Jesus addresses directly the part of our nature that condemns. He is telling us “rather than condemn, understand, so we can forgive.” Jesus was able to forgive because he saw the crowd’s ignorance with eyes of love; the crowd’s empathy, caught in blame and punishment, was blocked. The crowd clearly believed they were destroying evil; such destruction is the natural course of events when evil is identified by the human.

Augustine’s investigation is a journey based on Jesus’ words. He sought to find why people sin, and he found “a love of something else”, and blindness. If we were to “go full circle” so to speak, then we could apply Augustine’s methodology to the crowd. Did the crowd “love something else”? I think so. What do you think? What did the crowd love?

 

[fhansen]

Well, let’s say that sin is a failure to love someone else, God, and/or self completely. Augustine said that sin is caused by a love of something: material, power, protection, etc., which could fall under love of self. So the question to be asked, by the Augustinian method, would be “why do people fail to love others/God/self?”

And yes, there is always something to condemn in terms of actions, it is our nature to do so. That is what Augustine addresses straight-on. We condemn murder, we condemn theft, we condemn those acts which are hurtful to others. Augustine takes it to the next level. To me, when asking “why”, we come to understand people’s motives, and to that degree we understand, we can include, again, the sinner’s humanity.

I think Jesus did this from the cross. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” is likely an inspiration for Augustine’s quest. To me, “For they know not what they do” is an explanation that does not require any modern psychology. It says it all, really. When we sin, we don’t know what we are doing.

Now, it could be interpreted that Jesus condemns man’s ignorance. But in the context of the verse, “Forgive them” being His request, Jesus addresses directly the part of our nature that condemns. He is telling us “rather than condemn, understand, so we can forgive.” Jesus was able to forgive because he saw the crowd’s ignorance with eyes of love; the crowd’s empathy, caught in blame and punishment, was blocked. The crowd clearly believed they were destroying evil; such destruction is the natural course of events when evil is identified by the human.

Augustine’s investigation is a journey based on Jesus’ words. He sought to find why people sin, and he found “a love of something else”, and blindness. If we were to “go full circle” so to speak, then we could apply Augustine’s methodology to the crowd. Did the crowd “love something else”? I think so. What do you think? What did the crowd love?

I think the crowd doesn’t know for sure what they want-only that it might be achievable only by seeking it apart from God-which is why faith must be-and was- denied or obscured to begin with. The crowd loves love. We’re all drawn instinctively to some good or another that satisfies us, or promises to. But, as Aquinas said, “God alone satisfies”. Augustine stated a related sentiment this way, “I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within.” We look for love in all the wrong places. The “catch 22” is that we reject or miss the cornerstone, the ultimate good, the source of love itself.

And I agree, we do this to a large extent out of ignorance. And yet somehow justice is compromised by man in all this. Justice demands that man not only believe in God, but love Him, as well as neighbor, for his own good and integrity. And Adam should’ve been at least* less* ignorant, and therefore more culpable, than the rest of us, with preternatural gifts as well as sanctifying grace intact, and having “walked” with God. But even then I agree that ignorance played a role.

Many Christians maintain that Adam’s sin was particularly evil because He deliberately disobeyed God, knowing full well the wrong he was doing. But did he? Did he really know-as God knows-the full seriousness and consequences of his sin? Or, put another way, did he really know enough-was he wise enough- to trust God’s word on the matter?

Some Christians theorize that Adams’ trespass was infinite in nature because of the infinite goodness of the One offended. I never quite bought into that and the Catechism, for its part, doesn’t portray Adam & the whole drama quite so radically. It simply states that, at one time, man had it made- and then he sinned anyway by disobeying God. It was a very serious sin-it got him and his descendants cast out of the garden, separated from the creator and lover of his soul, but even then I understand this more as the natural consequence of his act, than as the punishment of an indignant, wrathful God. IOW, the sin was so serious because the willful rejection of God’s authority is the willful rejection of God as God, and man without God is totally lost, spiritually dead, the vital link to the source of life, love, and happiness broken.

And even our resistance to the notion that* I’m* lost and dead, in the way I am now, might be all the more proof of not merely an ignorance of Gods’ higher plans for us but also of an arrogant desire to see myself as self-sufficient, independent, complete in myself and not in need of God or anyone else for my integrity, evidence of an unreasonable preference, as the Catechism makes reference to, to remain spititually apart from God, whether that preference is totally conscious or not.

Anyway I believe our “exile” here from the garden is not as much punishment, or even reformative in nature, as formative, for the purpose of, with revelation, grace, time and opportunity-with the literal knowledge of good and evil now playing its part-of getting man to gain the wisdom he didn’t yet possess in Eden, so, like the Prodigal, he’ll run from evil back to the ultimate Good, God, Himself, having finally learned for himself of his need for God and the reason why He’s so vitally necessary.

 

[OneSheep]

I think the crowd doesn’t know for sure what they want-only that it might be achievable only by seeking it apart from God-which is why faith must be-and was- denied or obscured to begin with. The crowd loves love. We’re all drawn instinctively to some good or another that satisfies us, or promises to. But, as Aquinas said, “God alone satisfies”. Augustine stated a related sentiment this way, “I found thee not, O Lord, without, because I erred in seeking thee without that wert within.” We look for love in all the wrong places. The “catch 22” is that we reject or miss the cornerstone, the ultimate good, the source of love itself.

Whew, up in the clouds there, fhansen. Let’s bring it down a little bit. I’m not saying you are wrong at all, but your description of the crowd’s desire is a little, well, extended. The crowd loves justice, loves what the law protects, and loves their faith and their traditions. Jesus blasphemed, in their opinions. They wanted justice, and any notion of Jesus’ intent and humanity was blocked out of their minds. They wanted evil destroyed. “The crowd loves love” is probably true, but hardly causative. Am I wrong on this one?
Sure they missed it. I think they missed it because they were seeking to destroy a perceived evil rather than seek to understand, as Augustine and Jesus, encourage us to do. They remained in the default, to condemn, rather than forgive.

And I agree, we do this to a large extent out of ignorance. And yet somehow justice is compromised by man in all this. Justice demands that man not only believe in God, but love Him, as well as neighbor, for his own good and integrity. And Adam should’ve been at least* less* ignorant, and therefore more “walked” with God. But even then I agree that ignorance played a role.
Many Christians maintain that Adam’s sin was particularly evil because He deliberately disobeyed God, knowing full well the wrong he was doing. But did he? Did he really know-as God knows-the full seriousness and consequences of his sin? Or, put another way, did he really know enough-was he wise enough- to trust God’s word on the matter?

In addition, Adam was behaving out of his own desire for power, which probably felt “right”, no? It really can seem like something that is so attractive as the fruit should only be something meant for me. Why did Adam doubt what God said about the consequence of eating the fruit?
I am confused: please clarify. Justice is compromised by ignorance, is it not? We think we are doing what is right or justified, but we are hurting someone. Adam saw that the fruit of the tree was Good. God created Adam in a way that he would appreciate desirability. Adam wanted power and knowledge. God created him that way. Adam wanted autonomy, to be unencumbered, just as God made him. All of this for man’s benefit.
Actually, I find this portion of the creation story an explanation for the human’s compulsion for justice. The writers may have been very keen observers of nature, they probably were, in fact, because they obviously saw that all God created was Good. But there is this weird thing going on, the writer observes. Everything is Good, except what we see, and the projected God also sees, as Bad. Animals don’t have this perception, it is unique to humans. Arguably, a monkey sees that a snake is “bad”, but the human perception of negative is much more attuned to the behaviors of fellow man. Why? To me, it is quite likely that we evolved (God gave us) a compulsion for justice because justice, the perception of good and evil, moderates our behaviors. We do the good and avoid the bad. We reprimand, punish hurtful behavior and reward, appreciate, good behavior. If it wasn’t for the compulsion for justice, the behaviors of lying, cheating, theft, etc. would take precedent over other innovations, such as agriculture, and our tribal societies would simply die out for lack of cooperation. Our intelligence made imperative the innate human need for justice.
And though the net effect of this justice compulsion has led to increased cooperation in groups, there has been a price to pay, a consequence. One consequence is that we see part of ourselves as bad, we experience guilt. We see part of humanity as bad. We want to punish/destroy evil, which is part of the compulsion. So, we are somewhat self-destructive, wracked with guilt about things we do. We project a god that punishes, so we do all sorts of weird things like human sacrifice to appease our god. We make errors of judgment, we punish more than we should. But these things are moderated by experience; despite the problems, the compulsion for justice has been a gift from God. And I really believe that the desire for justice is innate, it is universal among humans. Humans don’t have to be taught how to think negatively about things, we are born with the capacity. ( I do believe, however, we are taught a lot about what to think negatively about.)

Some Christians theorize that Adams’ trespass was infinite in nature because of the infinite goodness of the One offended. I never quite bought into that and the Catechism, for its part, doesn’t portray Adam & the whole drama quite so radically. It simply states that, at one time, man had it made- and then he sinned anyway by disobeying God. It was a very serious sin-it got him and his descendants cast out of the garden, separated from the creator and lover of his soul, but even then I understand this more as the natural consequence of his act, than as the punishment of an indignant, wrathful God. IOW, the sin was so serious because the willful rejection of God’s authority is the willful rejection of God as God, and man without God is totally lost, spiritually dead, the vital link to the source of life, love, and happiness broken.

I am with you on the wrathful God part, and as you can see I am more in the natural consequence camp. I think that the whole idea that God gets angry and wants to punish are simply projections. And I really don’t see the evidence for an actual “fall” scenario. The story of Adam is there to explain something, I don’t consider it a historic event. To me, if anything man has become increasingly closer to God, in terms of relationship. Abolishment of slavery and elevation of human rights are manifestations. Convenience abortion or the rationale “not bringing a child to term where he/she is not wanted” is based on ignorance, lack of awareness, and it is one of the next hurdles.

And even our resistance to the notion that* I’m* lost and dead, in the way I am now, might be all the more proof of not merely an ignorance of Gods’ higher plans for us but also of an arrogant desire to see myself as self-sufficient, independent, complete in myself and not in need of God or anyone else for my integrity, evidence of an unreasonable preference, as the Catechism makes reference to, to remain spititually apart from God, whether that preference is totally conscious or not.

Anyway I believe our “exile” here from the garden is not as much punishment, or even reformative in nature, as formative, for the purpose of, with revelation, grace, time and opportunity-with the literal knowledge of good and evil now playing its part-of getting man to gain the wisdom he didn’t yet possess in Eden, so, like the Prodigal, he’ll run from evil back to the ultimate Good, God, Himself, having finally learned for himself of his need for God and the reason why He’s so vitally necessary.

I think we can forgive our “arrogant desires”. “Arrogant desires” are well-intended, aren’t they? The desire for independence and self-sufficiency are God-given. The idea of being apart from God, to have any kind of sufficiency apart from God, is just plain silliness. It is naivete. When I shoved God away with all my might, I did so with His help, for all strength, all power, comes from God.
As for your last paragraph, I agree completely, but I look at some of it more mechanistically, even though Love has a role all the way through. We are born with all of these desires, which are good in the sense that they enhance our survival, but these compulsions for power, independence, sex, material stuff, etc. to some degree enslave our souls and compel us to behave in hurtful ways. Knowledge of what is bad (hurtful, enslaving) moderates our behaviors until our awareness grows to the point that Love is the guiding factor. We learn that forgiveness is the act of love toward all that we resent.

 

[fhansen]

“The crowd loves love” is probably true, but hardly causative. Am I wrong on this one?
Sure they missed it. I think they missed it because they were seeking to destroy a perceived evil rather than seek to understand, as Augustine and Jesus, encourage us to do. They remained in the default, to condemn, rather than forgive.

I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same crowd here, but, from my understanding, they just wanted their way, as usual, undeterred by God or any other authority that may obligate them to obedience. Jesus’ perfection stood out like a sore thumb. God’s perfection and superiority should’ve stood out as well to Adam in Eden. The difference is that now we have the benefit of having experienced what life is like effectively sans God, because His will doesn’t reign in our world, morally speaking. IOW we can do as we please, treat each other as we please, for better or worse, because the Master’s gone away. Not only that but all our desires, all our accomplishments, all our possessions, etc, all the things the crowd strives after, are all for naught, or at least should be of questionable importance in our minds, due to one factor-death-that we have absolutely no final control over. The doctrine of OS tells us one general fact, if nothing else-the crowd doesn’t have it right; something’s missing.

I am confused: please clarify. Justice is compromised by ignorance, is it not? We think we are doing what is right or justified, but we are hurting someone. Adam saw that the fruit of the tree was Good. God created Adam in a way that he would appreciate desirability. Adam wanted power and knowledge. God created him that way. Adam wanted autonomy, to be unencumbered, just as God made him. All of this for man’s benefit.

God didn’t create Adam to be unencumbered by Him-that’s the ONE thing that God specifically disallowed-for man’s own good. This means that, within Adam’s own conscience the “natural law” that God “wrote” in his mind was opposed to the very act of disobedience that Adam committed-Adam sinned against himself by sinning against God, whom which, BTW, Adam was an extension of, so to speak, having been made in His image. The alternative is that God created Adam to oppose His own will, and all the sin that followed, rape, murder, torture, to name the most heinous, are directly willed by God, i.e. the concept of sin and human moral responsibility are complete fallacies.

Actually, I find this portion of the creation story an explanation for the human’s compulsion for justice. The writers may have been very keen observers of nature, they probably were, in fact, because they obviously saw that all God created was Good. But there is this weird thing going on, the writer observes. Everything is Good, except what we see, and the projected God also sees, as Bad. Animals don’t have this perception, it is unique to humans. Arguably, a monkey sees that a snake is “bad”, but the human perception of negative is much more attuned to the behaviors of fellow man. Why? To me, it is quite likely that we evolved (God gave us) a compulsion for justice because justice, the perception of good and evil, moderates our behaviors. We do the good and avoid the bad. We reprimand, punish hurtful behavior and reward, appreciate, good behavior. If it wasn’t for the compulsion for justice, the behaviors of lying, cheating, theft, etc. would take precedent over other innovations, such as agriculture, and our tribal societies would simply die out for lack of cooperation. Our intelligence made imperative the innate human need for justice.

Well that doesn’t quite explain where injustice comes from, why you and I might consider lying, cheating, and theft wrong in spite of the fact that they can appear to be quite normal behavior for humans.

And though the net effect of this justice compulsion has led to increased cooperation in groups, there has been a price to pay, a consequence. One consequence is that we see part of ourselves as bad, we experience guilt. We see part of humanity as bad. We want to punish/destroy evil, which is part of the compulsion. So, we are somewhat self-destructive, wracked with guilt about things we do. We project a god that punishes, so we do all sorts of weird things like human sacrifice to appease our god. We make errors of judgment, we punish more than we should. But these things are moderated by experience; despite the problems, the compulsion for justice has been a gift from God. And I really believe that the desire for justice is innate, it is universal among humans. Humans don’t have to be taught how to think negatively about things, we are born with the capacity. ( I do believe, however, we are taught a lot about what to think negatively about.)

The bottom line Christian message is that good and evil exist, independent of our opinions, and that evil is opposition to the will of God, behavior outside of how we were created to be, something not even possible for animals as they lack free will; guilt is just the natural consequence-the pain-of participating in this evil, in being out of harmony with the universe. And that this evil came about because of man’s taking it upon himself to determine morality for himself. IOW man became *self-*righteous. Have you ever thought about why we prefer to be right? Or considered that, maybe, there’s something oddly unreasonable about this situation? Why would anyone need to *be *right? For example, say two old men are arguing some finer point of politics, each making their respective points, until, later in the argument, things begin to heat up as something subtly changes; the two are no longer defending their particular truth, they’re now defending themselves, egos are involved, they *must *be right, in order to maintain their very self-worth it seems- the truth becomes less important than the endeavor of protecting their own righteousness. This is where pride comes in, IMO, where we put ego ahead of truth, ahead of God, in a way. Plain old everyday human self-righteousness is responsible for all sin, because all wrong is done in the name of right, and all wrong-sin-is unnatural, not a part of God’s will.

cont

 

[fhansen]

I am with you on the wrathful God part, and as you can see I am more in the natural consequence camp. I think that the whole idea that God gets angry and wants to punish are simply projections. And I really don’t see the evidence for an actual “fall” scenario. The story of Adam is there to explain something, I don’t consider it a historic event. To me, if anything man has become increasingly closer to God, in terms of relationship. Abolishment of slavery and elevation of human rights are manifestations. Convenience abortion or the rationale “not bringing a child to term where he/she is not wanted” is based on ignorance, lack of awareness, and it is one of the next hurdles.

But if there were no fall then morality doesn’t even make sense, does it? How can we say that man is becoming closer to God, or more moral, if there’s no preordained standard to judge that by. How do we maintain that abortion, for example, or sweat shops, are wrong, especially if someone else might consider them to be good? I do agree that in some ways we’re moving closer to God in many of these things and I believe that, despite what society may or may not think, the light of the gospel is the reason why social justice issues have come to the forefront in modern thought. Altruism was definitively made an authentic human value by Christ; in a world where conquering ones enemy was generally considered to be of much greater value than loving him. It just takes a while for that light to penetrate, and meanwhile evil continues forcefully along its own path in this world, making plenty of headway as well.

I think we can forgive our “arrogant desires”. “Arrogant desires” are well-intended, aren’t they? The desire for independence and self-sufficiency are God-given. The idea of being apart from God, to have any kind of sufficiency apart from God, is just plain silliness. It is naivete. When I shoved God away with all my might, I did so with His help, for all strength, all power, comes from God.

Rapists are well-intended, at least their intention is to do something they perceive as beneficial for themselves. Truly selfish intentions never produced anything of benefit IMO; we can survive just fine without them.

Being turned to God means we’ve become fully just -because that’s where our justice lies. This means, IOW, that we’ve come to love God with our whole heart soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. I’m convinced that man’s true integrity, along with his happiness, lies there. I’m also convinced that this is impossible without grace, without the aid of God. God allows us the freedom to turn away from Him, even enabling our behavior, whatever it may be, but He doesn’t will that we do so- that would be to oppose His own will.

As for your last paragraph, I agree completely, but I look at some of it more mechanistically, even though Love has a role all the way through. We are born with all of these desires, which are good in the sense that they enhance our survival, but these compulsions for power, independence, sex, material stuff, etc. to some degree enslave our souls and compel us to behave in hurtful ways. Knowledge of what is bad (hurtful, enslaving) moderates our behaviors until our awareness grows to the point that Love is the guiding factor. We learn that forgiveness is the act of love toward all that we resent.

There are some hard but valuable lessons to learn in this life- if we’re willing.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same crowd here, but, from my understanding, they just wanted their way, as usual, undeterred by God or any other authority that may obligate them to obedience. Jesus’ perfection stood out like a sore thumb.

Plain old everyday human self-righteousness is responsible for all sin, because all wrong is done in the name of right, and all wrong-sin-is unnatural, not a part of God’s will.

I pulled the last sentence out of a later part of your post, to help put things together.

Jesus blasphemed, in their opinions, it violated their collective self-righteousness, and they sought justice. It’s all tied together. Jesus needed to be punished in their eyes, and the crowd had plenty of encouragement from the religious authority. The crowd did not know what they are doing, but meant well. Jesus’ perfection did not “stick out like a sore thumb” to them, the crowd saw Jesus as worthless and dispensable. This dehumanization/demonization is a requirement that must happen in order for the human to do willful acts of evil against oneself or another. Can you think of an example where such blindness does not occur before a person does some evil to another?

Justice is a matter of perception. Look at the two groups in the holy land, now, Palestinians and Israelis. Both want justice, and both have a narrative that shows how they are justified and the other not. The answer is not to point to one side and say “their cause is more just”, it gets you nowhere, and it is ridiculous to challenge their views. The answer is to encourage forgiveness, and part of that forgiveness is to do just as Augustine did, to find the good intent behind people’s actions, to include the Other in one’s own humanity. Justice is a head thing. Love is a heart thing. Justice is hard to pin down. Love transcends all. That sounds preachy. Sorry.

And fhansen, animals do awful things to each other, and it is all quite “natural”, right? God made them that way, and it is all a matter of survival, all is for the “good”. Isn’t another way of looking at it: our nature is good, but it somewhat enslaves us, so God gives us guidelines to help us overcome our nature? Of course it is not God’s will that sin occur. Isn’t it true that for some reason God gave us autonomy in the absence of complete awareness, at the risk of humans doing really bad stuff to each other? Everything would be so much easier if we were either God’s puppets or if we were always fully aware of Love in each other, but for some reason, that is not the way things are. But awareness is growing, so I am hopeful. It is all a mystery.

God didn’t create Adam to be unencumbered by Him-that’s the ONE thing that God specifically disallowed-for man’s own good.
…The alternative is that God created Adam to oppose His own will, and all the sin that followed, rape, murder, torture, to name the most heinous, are directly willed by God, i.e. the concept of sin and human moral responsibility are complete fallacies.

Well, fhansen, there is yet another alternative. God created Adam to have his own will. God did this knowing that there is the possibility that man would oppose Him, but that free will, for some reason, was important to God. He wanted man to be free. God knew that man would exercise his free will in awful ways, but that love and awareness would prevail.

Well that doesn’t quite explain where injustice comes from, why you and I might consider lying, cheating, and theft wrong in spite of the fact that they can appear to be quite normal behavior for humans.

I think you’re using “injustice” as a term for “sin”. And the explanation was Augustine’s endeavor. That is what this thread is about.

Have you ever thought about why we prefer to be right? Or considered that, maybe, there’s something oddly unreasonable about this situation? Why would anyone need to *be *right? For example, say two old men are arguing some finer point of politics, each making their respective points, until, later in the argument, things begin to heat up as something subtly changes; the two are no longer defending their particular truth, they’re now defending themselves, egos are involved, they *must *be right, in order to maintain their very self-worth it seems- the truth becomes less important than the endeavor of protecting their own righteousness. This is where pride comes in, IMO, where we put ego ahead of truth, ahead of God, in a way.

Well, I will go ahead and say it. What I see as “truth” is a direct result of my experiences. So, I have some ownership of what I see as truth. It is part of my “self”. While I am on the subject, I really do think that the “self” grows to include all that we love in life. First, the self includes parents, siblings, as long as we are not condemning them. Then the “self” includes our friends, spouse, children, and community, which we will defend as we would ourselves. The “self” grows to include the poor and oppressed, the ostracized, everyone - except those we condemn, and those parts of ourselves that we condemn. It is a rather natural thing, I think. The only hiccup is the process is that we have trouble loving people we condemn, and that is where Jesus comes in. A priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but to understand.” Falls right in line with Jesus’ words from the cross, and Augustine’s quest.

Thanks for the reality check, though. I need to remember, and appreciate that your truth is a result of your experiences too, and the writings you find valuable and hold dear. We are not far off from each other. It is the righteousness aspect that I try to avoid, so I try to steer away from getting into the “who is right and who is wrong” stuff, and steer things back in the direction of “let’s investigate”. I put this thread on here to encourage people to see parts of ourselves and others in a new light, just as Augustine and others did for me. I really appreciate our conversation.

The investigation continues in the next post.

 

[OneSheep]

But if there were no fall then morality doesn’t even make sense, does it? How can we say that man is becoming closer to God, or more moral, if there’s no preordained standard to judge that by. How do we maintain that abortion, for example, or sweat shops, are wrong, especially if someone else might consider them to be good?

The more that the parents of the unborn child see that the child is amazing, incredible, and miraculous, the less likely they will be willing to have an abortion, some rare exceptions of course. This is an awareness matter. When they know the humanity, they will know the wrongness. The preordained standard is love and wonder. Science is getting closer, too, to having the ability to move an unborn child into a different mom, so we can remove part of the “control” factor in the parents, which influences the blindness. I have a lot of hope for this issue. The standard is in how we treat one another.

Sweatshops, too, are an awareness issue. Like abortion though, those of us who are not blind, that can see the harm in sweatshops, need to have the say. Truth will prevail. Justification of sweatshops and convenience abortion are blindness issues. This very much applies to the issue of war too. Our current administration, as well as previous ones, are blind to the humanity of our enemies, so they justify the enemies annihilation, see it as “good”, when all that is required is negotiation and reconciliation.

Rapists are well-intended, at least their intention is to do something they perceive as beneficial for themselves. Truly selfish intentions never produced anything of benefit IMO; we can survive just fine without them.

Well, all of the desires have some benefit to the individual and our species, so they in themselves are not the problem, and I refer again to Aquinas. What you are addressing here is the problem of hurting other people. As well intended as it may be to satisfy our desires, to find the “good intent” behind hurting someone else is a very different matter. It is not the “want” that is the problem, it is the blindness to the humanity of the victim that is the problem. I can slap a pesky mosquito, and that can be seen as a good thing. It is self-serving. The problem is when I see the value of another human as equal to, or less than, a mosquito. The problem is also when I have in my mind that the person deserves to be raped. Does this lead to another question?

As far as justice goes, and the “preordained standards”, does Jesus saying that “the law is written in your hearts” apply here? Preordained standards, put forth by an institution, are valuable and important until people come to a point where Love is the
guide, right?

 

[fhansen]

Jesus blasphemed, in their opinions, it violated their collective self-righteousness, and they sought justice. It’s all tied together. Jesus needed to be punished in their eyes, and the crowd had plenty of encouragement from the religious authority. The crowd did not know what they are doing, but meant well. Jesus’ perfection did not “stick out like a sore thumb” to them, the crowd saw Jesus as worthless and dispensable. This dehumanization/demonization is a requirement that must happen in order for the human to do willful acts of evil against oneself or another. Can you think of an example where such blindness does not occur before a person does some evil to another?

But this is what I’m getting at. Jesus had to be dehumanized precisely because otherwise, in His case, He would’ve had to have been worshiped. They wouldn’t have bothered with Him if His glory didn’t stand out in some manner-but the truth of that glory, like all truth, must be squashed if it interferes with my “glory”.

Justice is a matter of perception. Look at the two groups in the holy land, now, Palestinians and Israelis. Both want justice, and both have a narrative that shows how they are justified and the other not. The answer is not to point to one side and say “their cause is more just”, it gets you nowhere, and it is ridiculous to challenge their views. The answer is to encourage forgiveness, and part of that forgiveness is to do just as Augustine did, to find the good intent behind people’s actions, to include the Other in one’s own humanity. Justice is a head thing. Love is a heart thing. Justice is hard to pin down. Love transcends all. That sounds preachy. Sorry.

Justice is a matter of, um, justice, especially where God is concerned. He forgives us but the only reason forgiveness is even necessary is because justice has been breached. None of the drama makes sense otherwise, including Jesus’ passion and Atonement. In that, God is revealing His love and forgiveness in a most exhaustive way, but also the need for reconciliation because of wrong done, wrong that’s actually caused, perhaps ironically, by the separation between man and God that needs to be reconciled. He acknowledges our ignorance in mitigating culpability for sin but doesn’t want us to remain there-in sin-anyway. We have to start with the realization that His justice has been compromised-humans don’t behave as they were created to in some manner or another-and He wants us ‘greatly improved’, to understate the case-He wants the best for us.

And fhansen, animals do awful things to each other, and it is all quite “natural”, right? God made them that way, and it is all a matter of survival, all is for the “good”. Isn’t another way of looking at it: our nature is good, but it somewhat enslaves us, so God gives us guidelines to help us overcome our nature? Of course it is not God’s will that sin occur. Isn’t it true that for some reason God gave us autonomy in the absence of complete awareness, at the risk of humans doing really bad stuff to each other? Everything would be so much easier if we were either God’s puppets or if we were always fully aware of Love in each other, but for some reason, that is not the way things are. But awareness is growing, so I am hopeful. It is all a mystery.

People generally and intuitively recognize that animal behavior, no matter how objectionable to us, really is natural, in that animals have no choice; maliciousness can’t be involved, whereas a human does have a choice; we know that the awful things humans sometimes do simply need not be- that there’s an *unreasonableness *about evil acts, and culpability isn’t always mitigated by mental illness, immaturity, etc.

Well, fhansen, there is yet another alternative. God created Adam to have his own will. God did this knowing that there is the possibility that man would oppose Him, but that free will, for some reason, was important to God. He wanted man to be free. God knew that man would exercise his free will in awful ways, but that love and awareness would prevail.

Yes, the way it’s usually put is that God did not intend evil but determined to bring a greater good out of the evil He knew would occur as a result of the abuse of human free will.

As far as justice goes, and the “preordained standards”, does Jesus saying that “the law is written in your hearts” apply here? Preordained standards, put forth by an institution, are valuable and important until people come to a point where Love is the
guide, right?

Not sure what you mean. In Christianity Love is the standard above all standards. The law that’s written in our hearts must be buried or obscured, going by the behavior of many. ‘This is why the New Covenant involves Gods’ placing His laws on our hearts and writing them in our minds-because they’ve been compromised in us somewhere along the line.

Anyway it’s important and profitable to ponder all this, and seek to understand the psychology behind human behavior. For myself, I find that we can’t really understand such things, and most importantly can’t understand the source of evil in our world, outside of revelation. Our faith, within the pages of scripture and Catholic doctrine, gives us concepts, images, and language with which to explore and discuss these matters- a larger insight into our own nature- than we’re capable of seeing from our limited, personal perspectives.

If I seem a bit locked into the traditional line it’s because I really have come to believe the teachings of our church have the answers we need with which to understand and deal with human nature as we experience it in this world. But we need to keep working on understanding the meaning of all this revelation and just how it applies in real-life terms.

 

[OneSheep]

People generally and intuitively recognize that animal behavior, no matter how objectionable to us, really is natural, in that animals have no choice; maliciousness can’t be involved, whereas a human does have a choice; we know that the awful things humans sometimes do simply need not be- that there’s an *unreasonableness *about evil acts, and culpability isn’t always mitigated by mental illness, immaturity, etc.

Thanks for bringing things back here. This thread is all about culpability, it is about understanding rather than condemning or condoning.

I really don’t see that the crowd thought that what they were doing was unreasonable. If I heard somebody saying a bunch of atrocious things, I might seek “justice” by putting someone to death. It is blind, but it is reasonable. There is “good intent”; the people wanted justice, the dehumanization happens automatically when we condemn others. It is a mind thing. Sure, we may not see the “need” for certain acts, but are they understandable in terms of “good intent”? I think so.

Are you open to the possibility that the passion was a matter of God’s permissive will, not His determined will? Are you open to the possibility that the passion was a matter of God showing us, through his Son, that He forgives unconditionally, as Jesus did so from the cross?

This thread is not about relativism. The idea that everyone’s idea of justice is right is naive. This thread is about seeing the good intent behind people’s actions, which I truly believe is what God sees, and this is one reason why I think God forgives all. Are you open to the possibility that Jesus did not have to die to pay for man’s sin, but that
God had to show us, through Jesus, that we can forgive in all circumstances?

Anyway it’s important and profitable to ponder all this, and seek to understand the psychology behind human behavior. For myself, I find that we can’t really understand such things, and most importantly can’t understand the source of evil in our world, outside of revelation. Our faith, within the pages of scripture and Catholic doctrine, gives us concepts, images, and language with which to explore and discuss these matters- a larger insight into our own nature- than we’re capable of seeing from our limited, personal perspectives.

If I seem a bit locked into the traditional line it’s because I really have come to believe the teachings of our church have the answers we need with which to understand and deal with human nature as we experience it in this world. But we need to keep working on understanding the meaning of all this revelation and just how it applies in real-life terms.

Well, the only place we differ on these last two paragraphs is that I am saying that St. Augustine’s endeavor is definitely something we can all do. We can understand these things, and we can understand why people do hurtful things to themselves and each other, and we can find the good intent in all of it. “seek and ye shall find” really applies here. It takes work, prayer, and a lot of painful admissions and humility, but we can always find good intent.

I think one aspect of this whole discussion can be “Do I need to see that God is a punishing God in order to control my own behaviors?”. If yes, then the matter of finding “good intent” is meaningless. Self-condemnation and perceived condemnation from God may be the best thing for me. If, on the other hand, we have realized that we can love and forgive everyone, then we will project a God who does the same. Love itself becomes the “law written in our hearts”. It is not a love that denies justice in terms of “doing the right thing”. It is a love that gives us the awareness to avoid doing things that are hurtful, and doing the “right thing” because it is the way of Love, not because of the threat of punishment.