Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[OneSheep]

Happy New Year, ynotzap!

I have been away a bit, but I hope we can pick this up again.

I can agree with St. Anselm and Abelard that Satan had no rights to anything but punishment,in the moral order but they said nothing about the right of rule that comes from one’s nature, angelic vs human nature.,in the natural order It is also stated that …" Satan is allowed to test the saints" Man could not give God satisfaction in a fallen state, that’s another reason Jesus assumed human nature to raise it to the level of being regarded by the Father, to be heard, to be pardoned, to be reinstated in grace.

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

This “arrest” you are referring to is similar to the “satisfaction” that Ablelard says could have been pardoned without requiring a death on the part of anyone. Does the idea that forgiveness or grace was “unmerited” speaks toward the idea of a need for expiation or does it take us in a different direction?

Did you see these parts in the text of the links in the OP? They are worth a good read, maybe 3 or 4 good reads, and I need to look into this issue more myself!

Yes, they are worth 3 or 4 good reads, and I read those parts of the text. I’m not sure of the word “arrest” you are referring to, though.

I would say that any use of the word “merit” comes from the God-disfavors-view, the God-as-creditor view, unless we are not referring to God at all, and saying that from the human perspective forgiveness and grace are unmerited.

In a God-always-forgives view, there is no merit issue, nor is there a merit issue if omniscience precludes disfavor or sense of debt.

Any thoughts about how we harmonize all of this?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[OneSheep]

.

One perspective is to observe how every single thing in creation was created as a result of “paying a debt”…

Even if you want to walk from home to work, you must pay a debt to the air which will resist you. When you pay this debt you are gifted with a new reality…your workplace.

Some realities are so tremendous that they require death for it to be achieved.

Jesus created a new heaven and a new earth.

Humanity didn’t owe a debt, as such, but in order for it to progress towards a new reality, a sacrifice was needed, just as we sacrifice ourselves to do a simple thing such as walking.

Creation is built upon sacrifice.
It’s the reason most of the major global religions encourage fasting.


.

Well, some (most?) people sense that humanity owes a debt, and I think that it is best to say that the view is legitimate (it makes sense), as does the view that humanity does not owe a debt. I am using “debt” here in the way that there is some payment required in order that God may find favor in us, that we receive his grace and forgiveness. Both views can be found within any monotheistic religion, I think, and even followers of non-theistic religions will, by their human nature, find that others (including government) “owe” them something for wrong-doing, and so the issue of debt is not only between the individual and God, but between individual humans, right?

The task of this thread is to harmonize the two views.

Thank you for posting, Servant, and Happy New Year!

 

[OneSheep]

What many Catholics are not familiar with is that it took a real action on the part of the first real human to sever humanity’s original relationship with Divinity.
Another quote from the link.
“Biblical scholarship and biological science has long since taught us that such literalist readings of the scriptures can no longer be tolerated. Back in 2004, Franciscan Richard Rohr, writing a review of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” referred to the theological position that Jesus died for our sins as a “Neanderthal view of Christianity” (2004).”

.

Hi Granny, and Happy New Year!

I am at a quandary as to which of your questions to address first about this thread, but I do want to address this post, and please guide me as to where you would like to go from here in terms of “harmonizing”.

And, as far as “harmonizing” goes, Fr. Rohr’s use of “Neanderthal” is a non-starter, it sounds more like 'elimination" than “harmonizing”. On the other hand, recent archeological evidence indicates that Neanderthals were also intelligent humans, and many of us carry Neanderthal genes. So, rather than looking at the use of “Neanderthal” as equal to “primitive”, we can say that the view of Jesus dying for our sins as a human approach to the passion, as the non-debt view is also a human approach to the passion.

What many Catholics are not familiar with is that Jesus was obedient unto death in order to conquer death – a bodily death which is the result of the disobedience of Adam.

It is true also, Granny, that disobedience to salvific virtues is also a “death”. Jesus calls us to life, and shows us the way to do so, how to live an eternal life.

If God disfavored Adam because of Adam’s behavior, then that would be a starting point for a God-as-creditor view, a debt view, which is legitimate. If God never disfavored Adam because His omniscience precludes disfavor or sense of debt, then that would be a starting point for a non-debt view, which is also legitimate.

If you see the non-debt view as illegitimate, then feel free to eliminate! If you do not understand the non-debt view, and would like understand it, I can help you so that we can engage in the “harmonizing”, which is the point of this thread. I did not intend for most of this thread to be about explaining the non-debt view, but if you are open-minded, I can try. If you are closed-minded about it, then continued discussion is probably a waste of time. No hard feelings!

Thanks, Granny!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

If you see the non-debt view as illegitimate, then feel free to eliminate! If you do not understand the non-debt view, and would like understand it, I can help you so that we can engage in the “harmonizing”, which is the point of this thread. I did not intend for most of this thread to be about explaining the non-debt view, but if you are open-minded, I can try. If you are closed-minded about it, then continued discussion is probably a waste of time. No hard feelings!

One thing I do not think a 'non-debt" view addresses is that at the last supper Jesus says,"“Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." It is clear that Jesus saw his death as an important qualification for the forgiveness of sins. It looks like human scapegoatism.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, fhansen, and Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!

IMO- just speculation- He was already there: the Tree of Life, which Adam & Eve dismissed but Who came later anyway, when the time was ripe, when man was approaching readiness, to rescue Adam/humanity. So we’ll turn back to Him, and partake of Him as was always intended.

Well, from John’s gospel we can definitely conclude that Christ was indeed present at the garden of Eden in the story. The message from the Cross was “forgive them, for they know not what they do” which in a non-debt view could also be applied to Adam and Eve. I don’t know if Duns Scotus considered this aspect.

I am definitely open-minded about the “readiness” aspect as a means of harmonizing the debt and no-debt views. What do you think of this?: That God wills that we believe we owe him something, even that he disfavors us, until we have forgiven everyone, committing ourselves to love unconditionally. The sense of owing to God and disfavor from God serve to motivate the individual to behave, to follow the right path. Part of the “change” that happens is “switching” (albeit slowly, and in stages) from seeing that God disfavors to seeing that God favored us all along. The call to holiness (wholeness) changes from a demand (or threat) to an invitation with no strings attached.

It seems to me that the Atonement is all about change…in man; change away from the arrogance, anger, unforgiveness, and vengeance that we often perceive God as having towards the qualities set forth in 1 Cor 13, which describe love, which likewise describe God. But while the love is unconditional, the change is optional, because while God offers forgiveness freely, we may not accept the forgiveness; we may not want to change. Otherwise salvation would be universal and no justice would be served, no change would occur, no righteousness in man be demanded; sin/opposition to God’s will remains alive and well in His universe. Forgiveness may be universal but not so for salvation; change always remains optional; grace can be resisted.

So, here you are addressing the “until” aspect of harmonizing debt/no debt I am mulling about. Yes, it is in our nature to have the capacity to anger, demonstrate arrogance, refrain from forgiveness, seek vengeance, etc. And, demands for justice are motivating! Until we “change”, it appears to serve and function that we see God as demanding, even threatening. It serves a function that we have the perspective that God loves and forgives only conditionally until we learn what it means to love and have committed ourselves to such Love.

Once a person “changes”, he can look back and see that God loved them unconditionally, all along, (holding us in the palm of His hand, counting the hairs on our heads, etc.), but until the “point” of change such a God cannot be understood (realized, in relationship) by the individual. Once there is such “change”, the individual does not need demands and threats in order to be motivated to behave and center on Love.

Is this a means of harmonizing the two views, or does it fall short? Please feel free to add to this, or find shortcomings to this approach.

Thanks, fhansen, this is the type of discussion that I hoped to steer toward in this thread!

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning, fhansen, and Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year!

Well, from John’s gospel we can definitely conclude that Christ was indeed present at the garden of Eden in the story. The message from the Cross was “forgive them, for they know not what they do” which in a non-debt view could also be applied to Adam and Eve. I don’t know if Duns Scotus considered this aspect.

I am definitely open-minded about the “readiness” aspect as a means of harmonizing the debt and no-debt views. What do you think of this?: That God wills that we believe we owe him something, even that he disfavors us, until we have forgiven everyone, committing ourselves to love unconditionally. The sense of owing to God and disfavor from God serve to motivate the individual to behave, to follow the right path. Part of the “change” that happens is “switching” (albeit slowly, and in stages) from seeing that God disfavors to seeing that God favored us all along. The call to holiness (wholeness) changes from a demand (or threat) to an invitation with no strings attached.

So, here you are addressing the “until” aspect of harmonizing debt/no debt I am mulling about. Yes, it is in our nature to have the capacity to anger, demonstrate arrogance, refrain from forgiveness, seek vengeance, etc. And, demands for justice are motivating! Until we “change”, it appears to serve and function that we see God as demanding, even threatening. It serves a function that we have the perspective that God loves and forgives only conditionally until we learn what it means to love and have committed ourselves to such Love.

Once a person “changes”, he can look back and see that God loved them unconditionally, all along, (holding us in the palm of His hand, counting the hairs on our heads, etc.), but until the “point” of change such a God cannot be understood (realized, in relationship) by the individual. Once there is such “change”, the individual does not need demands and threats in order to be motivated to behave and center on Love.

Is this a means of harmonizing the two views, or does it fall short? Please feel free to add to this, or find shortcomings to this approach.

Thanks, fhansen, this is the type of discussion that I hoped to steer toward in this thread!

But aren’t you saying that God can’t have-and set-the standards for humankind? Should Adam have no expectations placed upon him, no yoke, no matter how easy, no obligation to obey whatsoever?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I am definitely open-minded about the “readiness” aspect as a means of harmonizing the debt and no-debt views. What do you think of this?: That God wills that we believe we owe him something, even that he disfavors us, until we have forgiven everyone, committing ourselves to love unconditionally. The sense of owing to God and disfavor from God serve to motivate the individual to behave, to follow the right path. Part of the “change” that happens is “switching” (albeit slowly, and in stages) from seeing that God disfavors to seeing that God favored us all along. The call to holiness (wholeness) changes from a demand (or threat) to an invitation with no strings attached.

You just reminded me of another condition for the fogiveness of sins:

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Does the shedding of the blood of Christ enable us to forgive each other?
I think it should as we are transformed.

 

[grannymh]

One thing I do not think a 'non-debt" view addresses is that at the last supper Jesus says,"“Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." It is clear that Jesus saw his death as an important qualification for the forgiveness of sins. It looks like human scapegoatism.

What needs to be taken into consideration is that the sentence in red does not eliminate the actual Original Sin. It is the actual Original Sin which necessitates the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which Divinity is the reason that Jesus Christ can forgive sins.

CCC paragraph 389 clearly states:
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”
Back in post 261, I used a quote which illustrates the alleged disappearance of Original Sin.
Another quote from the link in post 49.

“Biblical scholarship and biological science has long since taught us that such literalist readings of the scriptures can no longer be tolerated. Back in 2004, Franciscan Richard Rohr, writing a review of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” referred to the theological position that Jesus died for our sins as a “Neanderthal view of Christianity” (2004).”
The “Neanderthal view” puts Original Sin so far back in time, that it can no longer be tolerated in our modern culture.

 

[fhansen]

Part of the “change” that happens is “switching” (albeit slowly, and in stages) from seeing that God disfavors to seeing that God favored us all along. The call to holiness (wholeness) changes from a demand (or threat) to an invitation with no strings attached.

This is true. We can’t be holy until it’s done willingly. And our God is often seen as angry, proud, distant, staunchly superior, controlling-and that’s exactly how we act when we “play” God-the opposite in most ways of who He is. At any rate, I’ve repeated this many times but St Basil describes the stages pretty well IMO:

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finallyp if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Michael! Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. I am going to go back and look at your other posts again, but I will respond here first.

One thing I do not think a 'non-debt" view addresses is that at the last supper Jesus says,"“Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." It is clear that Jesus saw his death as an important qualification for the forgiveness of sins. It looks like human scapegoatism.

The interesting thing about all of this discussion is that there is support in the Gospel for both views.

Consider, for example, that in one part of the Gospel Jesus says to forgive anyone we hold anything against. In another part of the Gospel, Jesus says to forgive anyone who is repentant. The latter gives a condition for an act of love, the former does not. (A debt is a condition.) Sure, many say that there are omissions or lacks in translation, but the fact remains that both the conditional and the non-conditional have a time-tested appeal to followers. To some, the first verse I referred to mirrors the forgiveness of the unrepentant from the cross, to others, the latter verse reflects Jesus’ words toward the pharisees and other verses. People continue to translate and interpret based on their own view, shared by many.

Both views, to me, are legitimate. “Scapegoating” is a word that reflects the debt view, but today it has a negative connotation. In its “day” though, goats were sacrificed to God, and that was seen as the righteous thing to do, in a way of appeasing or making payment to God.

Have you seen my more recent attempts to harmonize the views in this thread? Feel free to critique, and make suggestions!

Thanks, and have a great rest-of-the-weekend!

P.S.: I caught the following after I posted, and I have time to address it now:

You just reminded me of another condition for the fogiveness of sins:

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Does the shedding of the blood of Christ enable us to forgive each other?
I think it should as we are transformed.

A priest/scripture scholar told us about this verse in Matthew, as it follows the call for forgiving one another 70X7 times: Paraphrased: If we refuse to forgive someone, then we will only be able to project that God forgives conditionally, or that God does not always forgive. God always forgives, but as long as we withold forgiveness from others, we will not realize, not fathom, that God always forgives us. It is in the practice of forgiving that we understand God’s forgiveness.

Understanding from practice, as such, is a transformation.

However, the verse also has its appeal from the “debt view”, without all of the psychological explanation. Do you see what I mean? Both views are represented, and can find truth in the section of Matthew you cited.

 

[grannymh]

I cannot speak for other faiths which seem to be implied…via legitimate views.

However, in the Catholic Church, Original Sin is a definitive doctrine in relationship to Jesus hanging bloody on His freely chosen cross. Thus, I wonder why is Original Sin avoided when it seems that the Catholic Church is being referenced.

Or maybe it is not the Catholic Church which is being referenced. .

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Ynotzap! I think I am finally catching up.

It is not man that God disapproves of (disfavors), it is his acts or choices that separate man from God, not God from man. God’s love is unconditional, and infinite. In love He created man, also in His love is included justice, He gives man his due by His own intentions, that is He give man his free will, and respects it, or honors it, even if man does not favor God. If man by free will disfavors God, and God honors his choice, is God disfavoring humanity, is God in love and justice disfavoring humanity? Or the opposite, man by his will disfavors God. How is God’s justice and love separated They are harmonized God’s love for mankind is infinite, and unconditional, there is no reconciliation needed between God’s love, and His justice

So, now I think you are expressing the no-debt view, that God never disfavors. We are not having to “buy back” God’s love or “favor”, because we never lost either in the first place. I see this view as legitimate.

So, let us look at the opposite view. The “God disfavors” view stems from a sense of debt, that we have wronged God and deserve punishment or do not deserve eternal life, etc, some payment is required to right the wrong. Do you see the legitimacy of that view? Does it make sense? I think it makes sense.

Thanks again, and God bless your Sunday!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, fhansen, Happy Epiphany!

But aren’t you saying that God can’t have-and set-the standards for humankind? Should Adam have no expectations placed upon him, no yoke, no matter how easy, no obligation to obey whatsoever?

The way I look at it, both views can include an obligation to obey, but it all depends on the impact of violating the obligation. In a debt view, disobedience incurs a debt, and God becomes the creditor of the debt. In a no-debt view, disobedience is forgiven (or no disfavor is incurred in the first place), and God invites to forgive in kind and follow the greatest commandment: to Love. I suppose it all hinges on the impact of “obligation”.

So, my (tentative) attempt at harmony is that it is God’s will that we see God-as-creditor until we embrace God and one another completely in love and forgiveness. At that point, we do not need a sense of debt in order to behave in loving ways.

later post:

This is true. We can’t be holy until it’s done willingly. And our God is often seen as angry, proud, distant, staunchly superior, controlling-and that’s exactly how we act when we “play” God-the opposite in most ways of who He is. At any rate, I’ve repeated this many times but St Basil describes the stages pretty well IMO:

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finallyp if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.

Thanks for bringing this in here. Turning away from evil out of fear of punishment is a slavery, but it is a functional slavery! How can we deny that there is a good result there, from such fear! For example, it is fear alone that may keep the psychopath from carrying out great evil, fear alone that keeps (hopefully) the vengeful from carrying out the most wicked of deeds.

Fear plays a role in the sense of debt, we have a “fear” of disfavor, a “fear of God”. It has its place, right? But then, God invites us to be “children” (children=free of the fear, and free of the attachment to reward?).

I have addressed this before, that children have hardly freedom from such issues, but I understand the movement from slavery to freedom, for the mercenary is also a slave of sorts, just as we can all be slaves to desire for wealth.

Thanks! I look forward to your response.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas! Happy New Year! Happy Epiphany!

This was in reference to my post 234:

They sound like some typical teenagers who want to do their own thing and have some fun by themselves. But when they received the beating they made sure they were in the next evening because of fear rather than respect.

Yes I’d like to know what the actions of chimps (who I love but know little of apart from some documentaries) has to do with our human way of belief in debts owned or not owned to God. We as humans are supposed to be the higher intelligence, the spiritual beings who can give thanks and praise to the creator (althought I am tempted to say animals could do this in their own way). Yet our behaviors over what is deemed right or wrong is sometimes even below the animals who apparently have no soul…

Merry Christmas Onesheep and to all

I did have a Merry Christmas, and I hope you did also!

Concerning “fear rather than respect”, respect can come from fear, and it can come from gratitude and love. The “debt” view appeals to our sense of fear of disfavor from God, that God requires payment for offense, and a no-debt view appeals to our sense that God loves unconditionally, that an omniscient God never disfavors.

Here are some questions to consider:

If the chimps could communicate with us, how would the group respond to these questions?:

1. (Before the punishment) Do the two adolescents owe you something for what they did?
2. Until they are punished, how do you all feel towards those two adolescents?
3. After you punish them, and you see them behave appropriately the next evening, how did you feel toward them?
4. How do you think the zookeeper felt about the two adolescents when they were misbehaving? (note: zookeeper=god to a chimp?)

I thought of more questions, but I have forgotten at the moment. I may remember again when you respond to these.

Thanks!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Both views, to me, are legitimate. “Scapegoating” is a word that reflects the debt view, but today it has a negative connotation. In its “day” though, goats were sacrificed to God, and that was seen as the righteous thing to do, in a way of appeasing or making payment to God.

Yes, but making his own son the scapegoeat to apease himself does not make a lot of sense. Does it?

However, the verse also has its appeal from the “debt view”, without all of the psychological explanation. Do you see what I mean? Both views are represented, and can find truth in the section of Matthew you cited.

Yes.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but making his own son the scapegoeat to apease himself does not make a lot of sense. Does it?

No wonder that does not make sense. It is not a Catholic teaching.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Ynotzap! I think I am finally catching up.

So, now I think you are expressing the no-debt view, that God never disfavors. We are not having to “buy back” God’s love or “favor”, because we never lost either in the first place. I see this view as legitimate.

So, let us look at the opposite view. The “God disfavors” view stems from a sense of debt, that we have wronged God and deserve punishment or do not deserve eternal life, etc, some payment is required to right the wrong. Do you see the legitimacy of that view? Does it make sense? I think it makes sense.

Thanks again, and God bless your Sunday!

Why would we/should we feel guilt over something someone else did? We can feel guilty for a sin we commit ourselves, feel bad and sorry etc, but this sense of guilt/sorrow wouldn’t feel the same when the guilt belongs to another, between them and God sort of thing.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas! Happy New Year! Happy Epiphany!

This was in reference to my post 234:

I did have a Merry Christmas, and I hope you did also!

Concerning “fear rather than respect”, respect can come from fear, and it can come from gratitude and love. The “debt” view appeals to our sense of fear of disfavor from God, that God requires payment for offense, and a no-debt view appeals to our sense that God loves unconditionally, that an omniscient God never disfavors.

Here are some questions to consider:

If the chimps could communicate with us, how would the group respond to these questions?:

1. (Before the punishment) Do the two adolescents owe you something for what they did?
2. Until they are punished, how do you all feel towards those two adolescents?
3. After you punish them, and you see them behave appropriately the next evening, how did you feel toward them?
4. How do you think the zookeeper felt about the two adolescents when they were misbehaving? (note: zookeeper=god to a chimp?)

I thought of more questions, but I have forgotten at the moment. I may remember again when you respond to these.

Thanks!

Happy New Year to you also

I’ll have a go…

1. Yes they owned respect to the elders and others in the group.
2. Anger.
3. Superior and fully in charge.
4. not sure, why would the chimps be wondering what their “God” was thinking, they were more concerned with keeping the teens in line, so that they get their food on time.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, but making his own son the scapegoeat to apease himself does not make a lot of sense. Does it?

No wonder that does not make sense. It is not a Catholic teaching.

Good Morning!

No, it is not Catholic teaching. The words “appease” and “scapegoat” are not used. What are used are words such as these:

It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down His life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that he wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross.”.

So, what is appeased is “justice”, which is equated with God by some, but for others also fulfills the nagging "disobedience is wrong, and a debt has to be owed somewhere, and it has to be satisfied. Augustine put the “creditor” as satan, Anselm put the creditor as God. Either way, some kind of “satisfaction” is necessary (wrought atonement and reconciliation with God), a sacrifice necessary, in this view, in order to pay the debt.

In addition, there is a lot to be said for the fact that we worship a victim of our own wrath this also turns around many of the typical features of many other religions. In both views, we worship a victim of our own wrath.

If I left anything out or am mistating, Granny, please add more to clarify!

Thanks, both of you!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Simpleas!

Why would we/should we feel guilt over something someone else did? We can feel guilty for a sin we commit ourselves, feel bad and sorry etc, but this sense of guilt/sorrow wouldn’t feel the same when the guilt belongs to another, between them and God sort of thing.

Are you referring to Adam and Eve? Yes, it is harder for me to feel guilty about something Adam did. However, I have plenty of guilt of my own! I can sense a debt from my own guilt, and that sense is universal, right? (Exception: those with pathologies)

Now, in follow up from my questions on post 234, and later 332;

Happy New Year to you also

I’ll have a go…

1. Yes they owed respect to the elders and others in the group.

So, the capacity for sense of “owing” is in the chimpanzees nature, right, their God-given nature? And it serves a purpose for the chimpanzees to have this sense of debt, does it not? Do you see that it makes sense that God created them to have this capacity for sense of debt, in order to serve a greater purpose, like group cooperation?

1. Anger.

This is how you are saying that the chimps felt toward the wrong-doers. In addition, their empathy towards the two adolescents was probably blocked, in order that they could carry out the punishment. Do you see what I mean? The chimpanzee group saw what the two did was unjust, and they were angry, and the two were seen as owing a debt to the group.

1. Superior and fully in charge.

Okay, the group got the situation under control, but what I am asking is, did the two adolescents now regain acceptance, did they satisfy the group, did they regain “attonement and reconciliation”?

My last question was:

1. How do you think the zookeeper felt about the two adolescents when they were misbehaving? (note: zookeeper=god to a chimp?)

1. not sure, why would the chimps be wondering what their “God” was thinking, they were more concerned with keeping the teens in line, so that they get their food on time.

I don’t think the chimps were really “thinking” about this, any more than we think, “I’m going to get really angry about that guy pulling out in front of me”. It was more of a reaction, right? No, they certainly were not concerned with what the zookeeper was thinking. I am starting with questions that assume that chimps could speak, so chimps answering these questions is all speculative fiction.

So, try the question again with that in mind. I ask one of the chimps in the group how the zookeeper feels toward the two wrongdoers. Assume that the chimp has not seen the zookeepers face, nor heard his voice. All the chimp can do is guess. What would the chimp say? Okay, a very insightful chimp would say “I don’t know”. However, most of us humans are not even that insightful. We answer the question like this: “If I were in the zookeeper’s shoes, I would feel____________ towards the wrongdoing chimps.” Would the chimps project that the zookeeper also thought that the two wrong-doers owed something?

Give it a shot, thanks!