H
hergratefulchild
Guest
yes, minus the bad place bit
- Status
O
OneSheep
Guest
Oh, you are referring to my comment about hatred not being the same as murder, not about the empathy blockage. Yes, our conscience judges both hatred and murder, but I think you would have to admit that you would feel a lot worse about killing someone than you would about hating someone.
I was equating “bad place” and “devil”. You do see the devil as an “evil force”, right?
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
O
OneSheep
Guest
Jesus does not say that they are the same, friend. What Jesus was saying, essentially was “You who think that a person is going to be judged because they murder, guess what? Even if you hate someone, you will be judged. So, don’t hate, don’t even hate murderers.” Jesus constant theme is forgiveness, even forgiveness of murderers.
There is an enormous difference between hating someone and taking a life, but both are judged. In that sense, they are the “same”, but that is where the comparison ends.
Yes, an “evil power” an “evil force”, right? It is okay to admit this.
Last edited:
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
the paragraph before the discourse on murder
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18For
truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest
letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from
the Law until everything is accomplished.
19Therefore
anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches
others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the
kingdom of heaven.
20For
I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the
kingdom of heaven.
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
Jesus teachings goes further than the law and we should look at anger with the same eyes as murder.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, we should see them with the same eyes, that both anger against someone and murder are wrong.
But let’s look at the CCC:
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
So, while both are immoral, the gravity of murder is much greater than hatred because the violence of murder is far greater than the violence of hatred.
The devil is seen as an “evil power” or an “evil force”, right?
V
Vico
Guest
You asked: “If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make a wise choice?”
The Holy Trinity gave both the preternatural gifts and sanctifying grace. They did have the information needed to make a wise choice: Genesis 3:11.
Uh, no, actual sin is a matter of the will not the outward behavior. Sometimes actions and omissions are done in ignorance of the moral nature or involuntarily, or without sufficient reflection. This means no or minimal culpability.
The forgiveness is for invincible ignorance and for those repentant.
There is no forgiveness for unrepented vincible ignorance.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
I modify my question: “If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make the wisest choice?"
Are you saying that the unrepentant and those invincibly ignorant at the time of the crucifixion, when Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do” were not forgiven?
The God you know does not “always forgive” as stated by Pope Francis?
Jesus, from the cross, forgave the unrepentant, people at all levels of ignorance.
Have you ever forgiven someone who wronged you, but was unrepentant?
Jesus was much more concerned in His preaching about the “Kingdom” on Earth, Vico. “The Kingdom of Heaven” made reference to a life that begins today, not only the afterlife. Jesus was guiding us to repentance, a change of heart, which the Pharisees and scribes resisted in their stubborn hold onto status and unyielding orthodoxy. To be part of the Kingdom of love, mercy, inclusion, our participation means changing our exclusive, protective, and unforgiving stance; it is not God “keeping us out”, so to speak, it is about encouraging people to take the steps toward holiness.
Would you allow God the Father the freedom and will to forgive everyone, or would you rather limit His mercy?
V
Vico
Guest
Q. I modify my question: “If God was giving them a “preternatural” state, why would He not give them at least the information needed to make the wisest choice?"
A. They had that information.
Q. Are you saying that the unrepentant and those invincibly ignorant at the time of the crucifixion, when Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do” were not forgiven?
A. No I said “The forgiveness is for invincible ignorance and for those repentant.”
Q.The God you know does not “always forgive” as stated by Pope Francis? Jesus, from the cross, forgave the unrepentant, people at all levels of ignorance.
A. I cannot remark on what Pope Francis said without a quote from him. The Catholic teaching is in the
Catechism:
Q. Would you allow God the Father the freedom and will to forgive everyone, or would you rather limit His mercy?
A. I do not limit God, nor could I. We have the clear teaching, Catechism
S
simpleas
Guest
Maybe, God, knowing that they wouldn’t be able to make the wisest choice just forbid them from eating of the tree.
He knew they would anyway…
O
OneSheep
Guest
They knew that they were making a choice that would hurt their children?
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
A human couple would make a choice that would lead to harm to their own children?
I know, we already visited this question. The thing is, simpleas, that the story of Adam and Eve, with the added layer of saying that the couple had “preternatural knowledge” implies a huge untruth about human dignity. Instead of what is implied, people are basically good, and will make the right choice when given the right information and not blinded by appetite, anger, any kind of want or condition that blinds us.
Again, what I am trying to show is that the Gospel presents us with a new anthropology, it is an anthropology that sees that everything about our nature is beautiful.
Yes, people can and do make the wisest choice when they have all the Truth and are not blinded in some way.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Exactly. But, what @OneSheep is asking – repeatedly!
– is whether they knew all of the consequences that their sin would bring.I’ve mentioned that knowledge of consequences isn’t part of the dynamic of the evaluation of moral acts, but @OneSheep disagrees, I think.
Yep. There we go.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Our consciences are built upon, formed by the dynamic of experiencing the consequences of immoral acts, right? Every person is gifted with a conscience, but its formation is a life-long process, a process refined by the wisdom that comes from experience.
To deny this denies that people learn anything from experience.
Disagreements boil down to a difference in personal experience. Do you have the experience of not learning from your experiences, not learning a more moral pathway?
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. At least, not in the way you’re conceiving of it (I think).
To say “conscience is formed by consequences of sin” would be misattributing the way in which conscience is formed. The Catechism tells us that “conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed.”
Judgments of reason do not proceed from experiencing consequences. Judgments of reason proceed from abstract thought. (Memories of consequences, on the other hand, might aid in concurring with a conclusion that our conscience has already reached, but they don’t touch the conscience itself!)
So, if my conscience tells me that drinking alcohol to excess is sinful, then I’ve already analyzed the moral content of the situation. However, I might still be attracted to that sin and want to commit it, even though I know it’s wrong. At that point, my memory of consequences of past instances of committing that sin (wasted money, dangerous acts I committed, the subsequent hangover) might cause me to decide to avoid committing the sin again. But – and this is the important point – that doesn’t mean that my conscience is speaking… just my aversion to repeating negative consequences.
I’m merely denying that “learning from experience” isn’t what conscience is all about.
(On the other hand, I might argue that the experience of negative consequences might lead me to examine the moral context of the actions that brought the consequences, and thus, rationally come to the conclusion that there’s an immoral act present. However, in that case, the consequence was only a catalyst for the process of internal reflection and formation of conscience.
S
simpleas
Guest
A human couple that believed they would be like gods, knowing good and evil. Perhaps they thought that would be a good thing.
Again we can’t be sure what knowledge they had, the bible verse doesn’t cover anyone else but the two humans, so I’m guessing they didn’t know about the rest of the human race that was to come.
God on the other hand knew everything.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Actually, it is not a mis-attribution at all. The recognition of moral quality is enhanced by experience. Reason itself is informed by experience, knowing of consequence is a big part of that.
The conscience itself is formed over a lifetime of experiences, so yes it is indeed enhanced by experience. Do you have the experience of learning something about right and wrong from experience?
But the aversion itself has helped form the conscience, right? We learn the importance of the moral codes we have been given. This is important in terms of “full knowledge”. If a person thinks that alcoholism is no big deal in terms of consequence, that is an error.
Yes, I agree that it is not what its all about, but Adam and Eve would have had much more “dominion over appetite” if they had the experience factor covered, as well as some other very important facts.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes! They DID think it was a good thing.
If they did, they would not have chosen the action they did. Humans don’t behave that way.
Yes, and like I demonstrated in post 107, the Gospel does not give the image of a God-who-knew-that-Eve-and-Adam-would-fail-but-put-them-through-the-trauma-anyway. Instead, we now know God as “Abba”, or “Daddy”, the kind of endearing Father who does not treat us that way.
G
Gorgias
Guest
My conscience is also formed over the course of a lifetime of playing golf and eating pizza. That doesn’t mean that my conscience is formed by pepperoni and my putter…
No – experience teaches us about consequences, not morality. Experience teaches me either poorly or well – if I don’t perceive a benefit for doing good, experience teaches me that doing good isn’t beneficial. Same if I don’t have negative consequences for doing evil – experience, in that case, teaches me that I can “get away with it.”
You’re conflating ‘experience’ and ‘consequence’ with ‘conscience’ and ‘rational introspection’.
I would say ‘no’, strictly speaking. The aversion only comes about through the personal experience of negative consequences, and therefore, only addresses ‘consequence’ and not ‘morality’. Here’s an example: let’s suppose I go out tonight and murder someone in cold blood. If I’m not caught – that is, if there are no negative consequences – then the experience hasn’t taught me anything about morality, has it? So, experience doesn’t teach morality.
No. Again, you’re misconstruing what the Church means by “full knowledge” in its definition of mortal sin, and adding something to the definition that’s not present. From the Catechism: “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”
Notice the definition here – “full knowledge” is “knowledge of the sinful character of the act”, not knowledge of all the possible consequences of the act.
Last edited:
- Status