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

[OneSheep]

Hello Onesheep, I’ve returned

Welcome Back! Or perhaps, I should be the one saying I’m back? I’m still working on responding in order. Thanks for your patience.

Perhaps this analogy help explain:

Imagine you are walking along the streets of a city, and lying on the street is a person asking for money/food. It is easily apparent that they are desperately in need, and moved by compassion, you generously and freely give them alms.

On the one hand, what you did was a complete act of charity–it was done freely out of love. What you did was perform a corporal work of mercy. On the other hand, you also paid a debt to justice. This wasn’t done in a way that felt obligatory or externally forced, but at the same time it certainly was morally required.

Yes, I think that this sense of debt, that which is completely non-coercive, can be agreed on by all(exception: Ayn Rand?), so I really don’t see any need to work on harmonizing two sides. There are not generally two sides of this aspect. .

For this reason, the “Creditor” vs “One who invites/inspires”, the “One-who-takes-offense” vs. the “One-who-takes-no-offense” would probably be more accurate terms for describing the two different views. How does God feel toward disobedient sinners?

CCC 2446 quotes St. Gregory of Nyssa, who says, “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”

I have trouble understanding the language “debt of justice” or “debt to justice”. When there is a debt, there is a creditor. Our own consciences are the primary “creditors” we encounter, right? We can feel we “owe” others for a great many things, and sense a debt to a great many people, and feel very guilty for not returning favors, treating people better, not doing more than we could to help at work, etc. So, is a debt to justice a “debt” to our own conscience? If so, let’s tell it like it is, a debt to ourselves. If it is not a debt to ourselves, is it a debt at all? Perhaps the words “compassion”, “empathetic response” or “acts of love” would be more accurate than use of the word “debt”?

Benedict XVI in his Encyclical Caritas in Veritate speaks about the “logic of gift”. Pope Francis will equate that with the “logic of Jesus” and sacrifice. This helps us understand where Pope Benedict’s (Ratzinger!) and Pope Francis’ “logic” comes from. Jesus’ Incarnation and offering on the Cross is done not in the first place to satisfy a debt, but freely to come to us out of love. This is what the emphasis is placed on in Introduction to Christianity, and rightly so. We can see the same emphasis in JPII (for just one example, check out Dives in Misericordia). But at the same time, he truly does satisfy the infinite debt we owe to God because of our sins.

The word “freely” there can be tricky. If God Himself is Love and moved by love, then we can say that God Himself had a “debt of love” to pay to man. We get to the point, again, “what is the nature of that debt?” “How does God feel before this debt of love is paid?” “Does God disfavor Himself if He does not incarnate?”. If such self-disfavor occurs, then this compromises the word “freely”.

Life was a “free” gift to man. If the gift had stipulations, then this somewhat compromises the “freeness”, but it makes more sense from an “owing a debt to a disappointed God” standpoint. If the gift had no stipulations, this makes more sense from an “unconditional love” standpoint, a standpoint for which omniscience precludes sense of debt.

So how do we solve the paradox? Quite frankly, we can’t. The Mystery isn’t for us to hold unto–it is always greater than we are, always opening up new pathways, for God is infinite. St. Augustine’s famous and incredibly moving saying comes to my mind, “Late have I loved you, oh Beauty so ancient and so new! Late have I loved you!”

And so we are called to embrace it all, even if we can’t understand it all. So we have God’s infinite love for us, yet apart from God’s intervention we are born with original sin and deprived of sanctifying grace. (O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!) God is pure Reason, but also pure Freedom.

Well, I made a “very tentative” suggestion as to means of solving the paradox. It is near the end of my last post to wmw.

God bless.

God Bless you too, CrossofChrist, and thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[OneSheep]

The word “disfavor” is often used in this thread – which is exactly why I would appreciate information about the word from a truly Catholic position. (post 376)

Here is a rather interesting example of “disfavor” from post 375.
“Yes, this is the way that “harmony” is achieved with the Father in the debt view (if the “payment” was demanded). However, the “harmony” I am referring to is the one that harmonizes the idea of a God who demands payment with one who never demanded payment. The idea of a God who is creditor vs. that God is not a creditor, the view that God disfavors in man for sin vs. the view that God never disfavors man, but is patient and loving even in the sight of sin and disobedience. This is a God that knows that all people, eventually, will embrace Him when they know Him. The God-as-creditor view does not share this optimism.”

Thank you.

Good Morning, Granny!

I am still wondering about your response to my questions in post 321, so I am only tentatively addressing this post, in hopes that your responses do not distract from the aim of this thread (not intended by, you, certainly), which is to harmonize the two views.

I’m not sure who started using the word “disfavor”. Is it unusual for a Catholic to believe that God “disfavors” sinners, that God sort of holds contempt? That He is disappointed? For some, the word “disfavors” works. A while back, I think you addressed the word “disfavor” in a way with which I agree.

Thanks for the clarifications.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I have trouble understanding the language “debt of justice” or “debt to justice”. When there is a debt, there is a creditor. Our own consciences are the primary “creditors” we encounter, right? We can feel we “owe” others for a great many things, and sense a debt to a great many people, and feel very guilty for not returning favors, treating people better, not doing more than we could to help at work, etc. So, is a debt to justice a “debt” to our own conscience? If so, let’s tell it like it is, a debt to ourselves. If it is not a debt to ourselves, is it a debt at all? Perhaps the words “compassion”, “empathetic response” or “acts of love” would be more accurate than use of the word “debt”?

No, not a debt to our own cosncience nor to ourselves but to the other.
And shall we say then, to the body of Christ. And it is tied to love. We owe love.

“I cannot ‘give’ what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with charity, then first of all we are just towards them. Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity, and intrinsic to it. Justice is the primary way of charity…‘the minimum measure’ of it.” ( Caritas in Veritate, 6)

 

[ynotzap]

Good morning, ynotzap, I have been away again, sorry about that.

I’m not sure that in the debt-view such contact with God was impossible. I think that in both views, God was still in Adam, for we are nothing without God. Adam had a soul. However, Adam was in some way separated from his own faith. Was he separated from his own love of God, though? Was he really intending to tell God that he did not love Him, or instead did Adam’s own action inadvertently communicate lack of love? Remember, the prophets all had access to God. In addition, we cannot limit the action of the Spirit, right? Has the Church ever said that the Spirit was not active before the incarnation?

Thanks again.

When Adam lost sanctifying grace, he knew what he was doing because God informed him what would happen. He committed a mortal sin, a serious matter, full knowledge and full consent. He was spiritually dead. God is always with man no matter what his moral state, but man is not always with God. Man lost contact with God, that is one of the reasons for the coming of Christ, to re-establish contact, Christ became the High Priest for mankind. Adam separated himself from the love of God, but God did not separate Himself from the love of man. Sin is choosing oneself over the love of God, I would believe the greater the sin, the lesser the love of God. Adam’s sin was very great because he was blessed with some much.There was no mistake in the intentions of his choice ( to be like God, knowing good and evil) You can be a prophet as a charism,without sanctifying grace, even Balam’s jackass prophesied. As for The Holy Spirit, we can resist Him if we choose to, He is always with us but we are not always with Him (if you hear Him, harden not your heart) The church has taught according to Scripture, that the Holy Spirit was not given until Jesus Christ was glorified. He promised the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit when He ascended to His Father.

 

[ynotzap]

Good morning, ynotzap, I have been away again, sorry about that.

My own scope of the situation is that one thing that separates the two views is whether God ever took offense. If, for example, Jesus stood at God’s side when Adam defied the Father, did Jesus encourage God to forgive, for Adam did not know what he was doing? Did our omniscient Father, before He created Adam, know that Adam would disobey Him, and therefore planned to give and then take away?

Did God know that Adam would disobey, indeed that all of humanity would sin, before He created, but lovingly gave us the gift of life anyway? The answer to this last question is “yes” in both views. The follow-up question, which divides the views, is “Does God take offense every time a person sins, even though He chose to give life knowing that people would sin, and created us with the capacity to choose sin?”

Answer:

God is omniscient, all knowing. He knew when He made Adam that he would sin (man is fallible not infallible) I don’t think God took offense, He expected it. Jesus is one with the Father (He made this known to St.Peter). Adam knew what he was doing, ignorance is the consequence of original sin, the absence of the Holy Spirit in the life of man, the Spirit of truth and knowledge.(gifts) which Adam lost. God gave, Adam lost, and God gave again. God never took away the Holy Spirit man lost the Holy Spirit by his free will. I agree, that God knew that humanity would sin, but in love, gave man life anyway. I don’t think that God takes offense in that the offense in some way alters His deity, or His happiness, God is never changed by our actions no matter how evil. But He is displeased for our sakes, because He wants so-much for our sakes to have us share His life for eternity. If all of us refused to love Him, it would not alter His happiness and bliss one iota, He is self-sufficient unto Himself, needing nothing. This shows the lengths that He went to for love of us as demonstrated in His Son, when He gave His life to set us free from sin, and promised union, Heaven to all that love Him Does a father take offense at a child when the child says " I don’t want to." Jesus said “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” We are all children in God’s eyes. If God takes offense, it is for our sake, not His. He shows His disapproval, displeasure with our sinful acts to exhort us to become pleasing to Him in order that He may favor us more, we never lost His favor.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning, Granny!

I am still wondering about your response to my questions in post 321, so I am only tentatively addressing this post, in hopes that your responses do not distract from the aim of this thread (not intended by, you, certainly), which is to harmonize the two views.

I’m not sure who started using the word “disfavor”. Is it unusual for a Catholic to believe that God “disfavors” sinners, that God sort of holds contempt? That He is disappointed? For some, the word “disfavors” works. A while back, I think you addressed the word “disfavor” in a way with which I agree.

Thanks for the clarifications.

For your clarification and the clarification of gentle readers, off CAF I am an independent researcher/editor with the specialty of select Catholic teachings. This does not mean that I am able to answer all points such as those in post 321. Therefore, I cannot properly respond to post 321.

In addition, that does not mean that I am familiar with all terminology such as “disfavor”. As it happens, I am not totally satisfied with the way I am handling the word “disfavor”, thus, in honest research, I have posed the two questions in post 376. I would love to have as many answers as possible.

Regarding this question in post 379, I would say that it is usual to attribute all kinds of human feelings to God.
“Is it unusual for a Catholic to believe that God “disfavors” sinners, that God sort of holds contempt? That He is disappointed?”

Here are some ideas for readers to chew on.

When a legitimate view is false, then in most discussions, that false view is automatically eliminated. Is the “God sort of holds contempt” possible meaning of “disfavors” a legitimate view because of its truth? Or should that view be discarded as false?

Those are not easy questions to answer because they cover two realms, both the spiritual and the material. They cover the difference between humanity and Divinity and the difference between Genesis 1: 25 and Genesis 1:26.

Information source: CCC 355-357; CCC 1730-1732.
For a clarification of CCC small print, please read CCC 20-21.

 

[simpleas]

ynotzap

How would you describe how God shows his displeasure at our sin?. Apart from the obvious…Adam and Eve, I mean in our time.

Thanks

 

[ynotzap]

ynotzap

How would you describe how God shows his displeasure at our sin?. Apart from the obvious…Adam and Eve, I mean in our time.

Thanks

God doesn’t have to show displeasure at our sins, the consequences of sin bring it’s own punishment. This is what God desires to prevent, but we have our freedom of will to sin.
It is said “without God we can do nothing” and even to sin requires the permissive will of God. It is also said “that God permits evil to draw good from it” He does give warnings of what may happen if we continue to sin such as natural disturbances, wars, even sickness. These things would not happen without His permission. These things can cause people to turn to God as a last resort because there is no other way. It’s sad that we have to be humbled that way sometimes. We have to hit bottom and then we reach out for help. The Blessed Mother has intervened for us by her apparitions through history giving warnings and solutions, and she always points to her Son, Jesus as the answer. He intervenes by destroying what we make our false gods, money for example. He can effect our food production by severe drought or flooding. He can destroy acres of forests by fire, He can cause plagues. He allows crime and injustice to exist. But all of this is not God’s hatred for man, but in order to call his attention to the God that truly loves him who has provided all the good things of life. We have substituted his creation for the Creator.

 

[simpleas]

God doesn’t have to show displeasure at our sins, the consequences of sin bring it’s own punishment. This is what God desires to prevent, but we have our freedom of will to sin.
It is said “without God we can do nothing” and even to sin requires the permissive will of God. It is also said “that God permits evil to draw good from it” He does give warnings of what may happen if we continue to sin such as natural disturbances, wars, even sickness. These things would not happen without His permission. These things can cause people to turn to God as a last resort because there is no other way. It’s sad that we have to be humbled that way sometimes. We have to hit bottom and then we reach out for help. The Blessed Mother has intervened for us by her apparitions through history giving warnings and solutions, and she always points to her Son, Jesus as the answer. He intervenes by destroying what we make our false gods, money for example. He can effect our food production by severe drought or flooding. He can destroy acres of forests by fire, He can cause plagues. He allows crime and injustice to exist. But all of this is not God’s hatred for man, but in order to call his attention to the God that truly loves him who has provided all the good things of life. We have substituted his creation for the Creator.

Thanks for your answer.

I asked the question because you said *He shows His disapproval, displeasure with our sinful acts *
You say he doesn’t have to show displeasure at our sins, but then you give examples of warnings that God gives us…why? to show his displeasure at our sin?
I thought of natural disasters being warnings from God as O.T thought, in a way. That God causes a volcano, floods etc to accure to wipe out the sinful people of the time etc. I don’t think of it that way in our time, would our God still wipe out thousands of people as a warning to man for his sinfulness? Doesn’t sound right, to me, just my honest opinion.
I’m not saying God is not “unhappy” with our sins, but I’m not sure he would cause natural disasters to happen to get people to realise their sin.
War too, I don’t believe God allows any wars, man does that all by himself, some claim it in Gods name, again I can’t understand a loving, forgiving and merciful creator allowing such human suffering to correct our being.

I may have mis-read what you wrote, and you don’t regard God in this way, but that is how it sounded to me.
Thanks again

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for your answer.

I asked the question because you said *He shows His disapproval, displeasure with our sinful acts *
You say he doesn’t have to show displeasure at our sins, but then you give examples of warnings that God gives us…why? to show his displeasure at our sin?
I thought of natural disasters being warnings from God as O.T thought, in a way. That God causes a volcano, floods etc to accure to wipe out the sinful people of the time etc. I don’t think of it that way in our time, would our God still wipe out thousands of people as a warning to man for his sinfulness? Doesn’t sound right, to me, just my honest opinion.
I’m not saying God is not “unhappy” with our sins, but I’m not sure he would cause natural disasters to happen to get people to realise their sin.
War too, I don’t believe God allows any wars, man does that all by himself, some claim it in Gods name, again I can’t understand a loving, forgiving and merciful creator allowing such human suffering to correct our being.

I may have mis-read what you wrote, and you don’t regard God in this way, but that is how it sounded to me.
Thanks again

Briefly. We often use human words and human life to describe indescribable Divinity.

By the way, the disfavor proposition is using the poor description of human disfavor in order to disguise the real issue of Mortal Sin.

 

[ynotzap]

Thanks for your answer.

I asked the question because you said *He shows His disapproval, displeasure with our sinful acts *
You say he doesn’t have to show displeasure at our sins, but then you give examples of warnings that God gives us…why? to show his displeasure at our sin?
I thought of natural disasters being warnings from God as O.T thought, in a way. That God causes a volcano, floods etc to accure to wipe out the sinful people of the time etc. I don’t think of it that way in our time, would our God still wipe out thousands of people as a warning to man for his sinfulness? Doesn’t sound right, to me, just my honest opinion.
I’m not saying God is not “unhappy” with our sins, but I’m not sure he would cause natural disasters to happen to get people to realise their sin.
War too, I don’t believe God allows any wars, man does that all by himself, some claim it in Gods name, again I can’t understand a loving, forgiving and merciful creator allowing such human suffering to correct our being.

I may have mis-read what you wrote, and you don’t regard God in this way, but that is how it sounded to me.
Thanks again

Sinful acts are acts against God’s will. God’s will always has man as the benefactor. To lead man to do good for himself He uses every means to lead men to do His will. Man benefits God in no way. You must understand this. God’s ultimate will for man is to lead man to union with Him for all eternity. God will interfere with man’s temporal happiness if it endangers his eternal happiness, true love demands it. Just as a loving father disciplines his son not in order to punish him but to prevent him from hurting himself in some way. No one escapes God’s Providence. We couldn’t even sin if it were not for God. We can not escape His Omnipotence, Omniscience, and His Omnipresence.

Even if God doesn’t have to show His displeasure at our sins, He does make it known that He is not pleased. He shows His displeasure to prevent us from hurting ourselves spiritually and even physically. If it takes a disaster to humble our pride, or indifference to Him He will use it for our ultimate good, or He may use it to get our attention. Such is the awesome state man finds himself, with the power of the will man can go against the will of God, if we find ourselves in our own made temporal hell, or in Hell eternally, we chose it by our free will.

In the Old Testament, God sent prophets to warn people of impending disaster for their conduct. He still sends prophets to warn people that they are on the road to Perdition, the Christian Catholic Church is such a Prophet, and her sincere faithful. He will tear down false gods whatever they may be, material things, or even humans, and this includes spiritual things. We have experienced this in our own lifetime. People who oppose God are asserting themselves, and become gods unto themselves, making their own rules, and this has even affected society in many ways. Men who have put their science above God, and have no need for Him. We had leaders who determined who will live and who will die, as shown in World Wars. We even have it in abortions.

God does not necessarily cause all disasters to wipe out sinful men, it maybe, if lives are taken, that in God’s wisdom it’s time to take them home to Himself, even to relieve them of their temporal suffering, a purging, before entering Paradise I also know that disasters natural or otherwise do make people fear and inclined them to think of God. I heard many times people saying :" I lost everything but God spared my life" We don’t understand all the ways God acts for our benefit, but we do understand some of them. I hope this clears up what I meant by my statements.

 

[simpleas]

Sinful acts are acts against God’s will. God’s will always has man as the benefactor. To lead man to do good for himself He uses every means to lead men to do His will. Man benefits God in no way. You must understand this. God’s ultimate will for man is to lead man to union with Him for all eternity. God will interfere with man’s temporal happiness if it endangers his eternal happiness, true love demands it. Just as a loving father disciplines his son not in order to punish him but to prevent him from hurting himself in some way. No one escapes God’s Providence. We couldn’t even sin if it were not for God. We can not escape His Omnipotence, Omniscience, and His Omnipresence.

Even if God doesn’t have to show His displeasure at our sins, He does make it known that He is not pleased. He shows His displeasure to prevent us from hurting ourselves spiritually and even physically. If it takes a disaster to humble our pride, or indifference to Him He will use it for our ultimate good, or He may use it to get our attention. Such is the awesome state man finds himself, with the power of the will man can go against the will of God, if we find ourselves in our own made temporal hell, or in Hell eternally, we chose it by our free will.

In the Old Testament, God sent prophets to warn people of impending disaster for their conduct. He still sends prophets to warn people that they are on the road to Perdition, the Christian Catholic Church is such a Prophet, and her sincere faithful. He will tear down false gods whatever they may be, material things, or even humans, and this includes spiritual things. We have experienced this in our own lifetime. People who oppose God are asserting themselves, and become gods unto themselves, making their own rules, and this has even affected society in many ways. Men who have put their science above God, and have no need for Him. We had leaders who determined who will live and who will die, as shown in World Wars. We even have it in abortions.

God does not necessarily cause all disasters to wipe out sinful men, it maybe, if lives are taken, that in God’s wisdom it’s time to take them home to Himself, even to relieve them of their temporal suffering, a purging, before entering Paradise I also know that disasters natural or otherwise do make people fear and inclined them to think of God. I heard many times people saying :" I lost everything but God spared my life" We don’t understand all the ways God acts for our benefit, but we do understand some of them. I hope this clears up what I meant by my statements.

Yes thanks, you have cleared it up for me.

 

[simpleas]

Briefly. We often use human words and human life to describe indescribable Divinity.

By the way, the disfavor proposition is using the poor description of human disfavor in order to disguise the real issue of Mortal Sin.

Yes we do, and people view it all in many different ways.

I’m not sure what the whole point of the word disfavor is. God has never disfavored his creation, at least that is where I have arrived at.

 

[OneSheep]

No, not a debt to our own cosncience nor to ourselves but to the other.
And shall we say then, to the body of Christ. And it is tied to love. We owe love.

“I cannot ‘give’ what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with charity, then first of all we are just towards them. Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity, and intrinsic to it. Justice is the primary way of charity…‘the minimum measure’ of it.” ( Caritas in Veritate, 6)

Thanks for the beautiful words from Caritas in Veritate.

Yes, I agree, justice is a minimum measure of charity. When we see that God is a creditor, we are motivated to do this minimum, which is a good thing. It is the “least that we can do.” The person may be motivated by “God’s wrath” or “fear of hell”, which can be important in people’s developing spirituality.

Such a motivation toward charity is a move in the right direction, through doing charity a person learns to love and empathize if they have not learned such already. What we do affects what we think and feel. Psychological studies have confirmed this.

We form a set of right v. wrong rules in our conscience, and the conscience gives us carrot - and - stick feedback, making us feel good when we abide by the rules and bad when we don’t. Does the person with a normal conscience have a self-inflicted “stick” of guilt when they have failed to love? I’m not talking about sins of “commission”, I am talking about “sins of omission”, when we could have done more to help than we did. Moving beyond, developmentally, from the debt/satisfied debt view, we see justice as a minimum, and not so much a debt, but what is called for, what is requested (vs. demanded, “or else”) from our Abba.

Again, my tentative theory: We are called, it is God’s will, that we sense this debt, and therefore do at least the minimum out of fear, wrath-avoidance or otherwise, until (through charitable works and other experiences), we have forgiven all, erasing every last inhibition to our own ability to love everyone.

Thanks again

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for the beautiful words from Caritas in Veritate.

Yes, I agree, justice is a minimum measure of charity. When we see that God is a creditor, we are motivated to do this minimum, which is a good thing. It is the “least that we can do.” The person may be motivated by “God’s wrath” or “fear of hell”, which can be important in people’s developing spirituality.

Such a motivation toward charity is a move in the right direction, through doing charity a person learns to love and empathize if they have not learned such already. What we do affects what we think and feel. Psychological studies have confirmed this.

We form a set of right v. wrong rules in our conscience, and the conscience gives us carrot - and - stick feedback, making us feel good when we abide by the rules and bad when we don’t. Does the person with a normal conscience have a self-inflicted “stick” of guilt when they have failed to love? I’m not talking about sins of “commission”, I am talking about “sins of omission”, when we could have done more to help than we did. Moving beyond, developmentally, from the debt/satisfied debt view, we see justice as a minimum, and not so much a debt, but what is called for, what is requested (vs. demanded, “or else”) from our Abba.

Again, my tentative theory: We are called, it is God’s will, that we sense this debt, and therefore do at least the minimum out of fear, wrath-avoidance or otherwise, until (through charitable works and other experiences), we have forgiven all, erasing every last inhibition to our own ability to love everyone.
Thanks again

Could this be a way of thinking about it, that until we can love everyone we would fear God because our conscience reminds us that we haven’t quite got it right yet?
If we can love without taking offence, without getting angry, without needing the person/s to be punished, but instead want to help the “offender” we are more near doing God’s will.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Could this be a way of thinking about it, that until we can love everyone we would fear God because our conscience reminds us that we haven’t quite got it right yet?
.

Yes, this is along the lines of what I am thinking. Until we learn to love everyone (love begins with those near us, and then extends and extends, and stops, naturally, with those we take offense) genuine fear of God has its place, fear of God throwing us into hell, fear of God’s wrath. Our conscience, our beautifully functional conscience, is there to keep us in line with its rulebook, holding us to do the “minimum.”

We will fear God until we know Love well enough to know that we have nothing to fear. And, at that point, the point of knowing Love that well, the “minimum” rules of justice are no longer needed. The fear is not needed for us to do the will of God.

If we can love without taking offence, without getting angry, without needing the person/s to be punished, but instead want to help the “offender” we are more near doing God’s will.

So, in the theory I proposed, God wills that we take offense, even express our anger (for even our anger has its place in modifying the behaviors of those around us), until we have forgiven the offender and then want to help him. We are automatically angry at terrorists until we forgive them. Then, once we forgive, we will want to help them (work for their well-being, not their cause, of course). Both the anger and the forgiveness are God’s will.

Anger is triggered by our conscience when we view something unconscionable taking place. We are angered by injustice. This working of the conscience is God-given, and must be developed in children. My wife works with plenty of kindergartners who have undeveloped consciences! With patience, the kids eventually learn what hurts others, and they come to appreciate the well-being of their classmates, even get angry when others behave hurtfully. We cannot separate our capacity to anger from “God’s will” I think.

So, it is God’s will that we experience the anger until we have forgiven. And God invites us to forgive! It’s like the words:

“Okay, kids, you know that “offense” capacity I programmed into you? It’s really, really, useful, but please move beyond it now, for my kingdom is a place where we love unconditionally, where we forgive all offenses and love without bound.”

Jesus sheds offense as he views the unrepentant, from the cross, and forgives. This is the example He sets.

Does that sound like what you are thinking too?

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

. When we see that God is a creditor, we are motivated to do this minimum, which is a good thing.

Please accept my sincere apology. I am so mad at myself for not looking up the word “creditor” in the dictionary.

May I kindly, respectfully, in the interest of common information, gently point to an ordinary dictionary or Google “creditor, definition.” I simply do not think that “creditor” is in the same divine league as the recognized attributes of our Divine, transcendent, super-natural Pure Spirit without material restrictions, almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth." On the other hand, I could be wrong about God.

Therefore, I am most interested in how you explain the normal creditor definition as applied to the God taught by the Catholic Church.

Example from Google:
"A creditor is a party (e.g. person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim on the services of a second party. It is a person or institution to whom money is owed.[1] " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creditor

Please note that I can envision a “creditor” allegory between humans and God; thus, I am not directly contradicting your usage. I would like clarification on the God part in your allegory. Come to think of it, I also would appreciate clarification on the human part.

Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

God is omniscient, all knowing. He knew when He made Adam that he would sin (man is fallible not infallible) I don’t think God took offense, He expected it. Jesus is one with the Father (He made this known to St.Peter).

Good morning, Ynotzap!

So, if God takes no offense from sin, then the only “debt” left is the gap that we are compelled to fill by being inspired to love God back in gratitude. In this case, we are not viewing God as “creditor” but as one who gives freely and gratefully accepts, not demands, our love in return.

In the other view, God does take offense, and demands some kind of payment for our sins, “expiation” as Cardinal Ratzinger describes Anselm’s view.

Adam knew what he was doing, ignorance is the consequence of original sin, the absence of the Holy Spirit in the life of man, the Spirit of truth and knowledge.(gifts) which Adam lost. God gave, Adam lost, and God gave again. God never took away the Holy Spirit man lost the Holy Spirit by his free will. I agree, that God knew that humanity would sin, but in love, gave man life anyway. I don’t think that God takes offense in that the offense in some way alters His deity, or His happiness, God is never changed by our actions no matter how evil. But He is displeased for our sakes, because He wants so-much for our sakes to have us share His life for eternity.

If ignorance is the consequence of original sin, then Adam was truly omniscient beforehand. If he was omniscient beforehand, he would have known that his acts would compromise the well-being of billions of people. However, if he was omniscient he would have loved, appreciated, and had empathy for, all those people, and would have refrained from disobedience.

I think that the Adam story is meant to show a God who takes offense and punishes Adam. This reflects our first image of God, a God who takes offense. The offense does not change God, but changes God’s view of Adam, He feels some anger toward Adam when Adam disobeys. He loves Adam, but now holds something against Adam, a debt. Jesus comes to pay the debt, not only for Adam’s sins but for all of our sins. This is the way that it all falls into place in the God-as-Creditor view, right? And I am saying that this view is legitimate.

If all of us refused to love Him, it would not alter His happiness and bliss one iota, He is self-sufficient unto Himself, needing nothing. This shows the lengths that He went to for love of us as demonstrated in His Son, when He gave His life to set us free from sin, and promised union, Heaven to all that love Him Does a father take offense at a child when the child says " I don’t want to." Jesus said “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” We are all children in God’s eyes. If God takes offense, it is for our sake, not His. He shows His disapproval, displeasure with our sinful acts to exhort us to become pleasing to Him in order that He may favor us more, we never lost His favor.

So, what you are saying there, seems to pivot on “If God takes offense”.

In one view, God takes offense at the child’s “I don’t want to”. He expresses some disfavor in order that the child be “exhorted” to behave and obey. The child sees God’s disfavor (disapproval, displeasure, “less favor”) and feels guilty. When the child repents and obeys, the debt is paid. Legitimate.

In the other view, God does not take offense at the child’s “I don’t want to”. He created the child with the desire for freedom, autonomy, and He knew that the child would lack the awareness to immediately see that obedience is oneness, and that oneness (wholeness, holiness) is an even deeper “want” than autonomy. He sees that the child will suffer consequences from trying to be self-sufficient and from trying to find meaning in his fulfillment of appetites. In addition, God has given the child a conscience to keep the child from misbehaving greatly, which will hopefully keep him from doing hurtful things to others. He sees that the child will eventually come back, and He will welcome the child with open arms, as His arms have been open and beckoning the whole time, without interruption.
Legitimate. (Do you see the prodigal son story here?)

Of course, these brief explanations are lacking in much detail, but these are the views that I am looking to “harmonize” in this thread.

You are making a great effort, Ynotzap, at what seems to be trying to meld the two views so that there is a God who both takes offense and does not, and I like the attempt! Of course we want the God we love and trust in to have a certain face, a certain, unchanging being. Well, God does have a certain, unchanging Love, and I know you agree. However, there are some details about offense or lack of offense, debt or lack of debt, that will depend on where the individual is in their journey, and these differences in perception cannot be eliminated, but are to be respected.

What I am suggesting (tentatively) is that these differences in the way that we see God are God’s will. God knows, and even wills, that we will see Him as taking offense until we have forgiven everyone, including ourselves, that we hold something against. This is forgiveness at the deepest level we can, including forgiveness of our own drives and appetites, forgiveness of our “shadow”.

Thanks again, Ynotzap!

 

[fhansen]

Hi Simpleas!

Yes, this is along the lines of what I am thinking. Until we learn to love everyone (love begins with those near us, and then extends and extends, and stops, naturally, with those we take offense) genuine fear of God has its place, fear of God throwing us into hell, fear of God’s wrath. Our conscience, our beautifully functional conscience, is there to keep us in line with its rulebook, holding us to do the “minimum.”

We will fear God until we know Love well enough to know that we have nothing to fear. And, at that point, the point of knowing Love that well, the “minimum” rules of justice are no longer needed. The fear is not needed for us to do the will of God.

So, in the theory I proposed, God wills that we take offense, even express our anger (for even our anger has its place in modifying the behaviors of those around us), until we have forgiven the offender and then want to help him. We are automatically angry at terrorists until we forgive them. Then, once we forgive, we will want to help them (work for their well-being, not their cause, of course). Both the anger and the forgiveness are God’s will.

Anger is triggered by our conscience when we view something unconscionable taking place. We are angered by injustice. This working of the conscience is God-given, and must be developed in children. My wife works with plenty of kindergartners who have undeveloped consciences! With patience, the kids eventually learn what hurts others, and they come to appreciate the well-being of their classmates, even get angry when others behave hurtfully. We cannot separate our capacity to anger from “God’s will” I think.

So, it is God’s will that we experience the anger until we have forgiven. And God invites us to forgive! It’s like the words:

“Okay, kids, you know that “offense” capacity I programmed into you? It’s really, really, useful, but please move beyond it now, for my kingdom is a place where we love unconditionally, where we forgive all offenses and love without bound.”

Jesus sheds offense as he views the unrepentant, from the cross, and forgives. This is the example He sets.

Does that sound like what you are thinking too?

Thanks!

Yes, we owe God and each other, for justice sake,*** love.*** We should be able to experience, here on earth, the *need *for this justice due to the severe *lack *of it that results from our many failures to love, which in turn results from our many desires which conflict with love, which in turn resulted from humanity having turning away from (disobeyed) the very source of justice, the very Source of love. Once out of communion with Him, we cannot maintain moral integrity. We cannot love as we need without grace.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Granny!

Please accept my sincere apology. I am so mad at myself for not looking up the word “creditor” in the dictionary.

May I kindly, respectfully, in the interest of common information, gently point to an ordinary dictionary or Google “creditor, definition.” I simply do not think that “creditor” is in the same divine league as the recognized attributes of our Divine, transcendent, super-natural Pure Spirit without material restrictions, almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth." On the other hand, I could be wrong about God.

Therefore, I am most interested in how you explain the normal creditor definition as applied to the God taught by the Catholic Church.

Example from Google:
"A creditor is a party (e.g. person, organization, company, or government) that has a claim on the services of a second party. It is a person or institution to whom money is owed.[1] " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creditor

Please note that I can envision a “creditor” allegory between humans and God; thus, I am not directly contradicting your usage. I would like clarification on the God part in your allegory. Come to think of it, I also would appreciate clarification on the human part.

Thank you.

In the “debt” view, Jesus pays a ransom to satisfy a debt created when man offends God. It is a debt to be satisfied on the “claim” that God has against man, and for which man must pay (expiation, Anselm). Man offends God, and God is not satisfied until payment is made. I am using “creditor” as “One who seeks (demands) payment”. It’s like, “once this is paid (and you stay in my favor), I can let you into heaven, I can favor you completely, I can forgive you, etc.” You may find that I lumped too many things together there, feel free to ask for more clarification!

On the human part, when man sees that God disfavors him when he exhibits certain behaviors, he is motivated to do justice, do the minimum.

When a legitimate view is false, then in most discussions, that false view is automatically eliminated. Is the “God sort of holds contempt” possible meaning of “disfavors” a legitimate view because of its truth? Or should that view be discarded as false?

I think you are getting at a very important point here. Even if I think a view is false, I am not being called by Pope Benedict’s words to eliminate it. I am called to go deeply into the view, understand it’s legitimacy, and seek to find harmony. I can say “that view is different from my understanding” without labeling it as “false”.

I held the “debt” view for a good while, Granny, and that view had plenty of support in scripture and standard theology. For a while, I labelled it as “false”, (as did Cardinal Ratzinger) but I can no longer. It seems to me (tentative theory) that God wills that we have the “debt” view for part(s) of our lives.

Have a great day. Hope you are still well!