I think that’s too literalistic a reading. The devil isn’t a literal snake, after all. He doesn’t crawl or eat dirt.
Except that, in Genesis 3, we – that is, Adam and Eve and all their descendants – are the ‘wolf’ who bring sin into the world and nurture it.
in both senses he actually does.
not all their descendants and this was after the fall.
You have missed the point of the question. You would punish your own grandchildren for your child’s behavior? You would create desires for power and autonomy in a child and tell them not to eat of something that would give them these, or they would die? And then, when they defy you just as you knew they would, punish them worse than what you had threatened?
It’s not ‘punishment’. It’s ‘consequences’. And yes, by virtue of the way you treat your children, and by virtue of the way they “turn out” from your care… you’ve just influenced the lives of your grandchildren. Congratulations! You’ve just defeated your own point!
Umm… how can you ‘forgive’ someone who’s defiant and wants no forgiveness? You can offer it, of course, but if it’s not accepted…
That actually is a dogma of faith, from Session 6 of the Council of Trent:
There is a healthy fear.
Philippians 2:12-13
When a person has forgiven someone that has trespassed against them, even without their repentance, it is as in Proverbs 25:
However, we do not forgive the guilt of mortal sin as God does. That forgiveness is different than ours – ours is to free us from desire for revenge and to allow charity to exist. Charity is never absent from God, even though those that die with final impenitence will suffer eternal damnation.
The whole concept of “justification” smacks of doctrine of human depravity, but nothing there says anything about God ever withholding forgiveness, ever. All it says (in a nutshell) is that reconciliation involves repentance on the part of the sinner.
This again has to do with reconciliation, which is what is involved in Penance. Again, this does not say that God ever withholds His forgiveness. Such would be a limit on His mercy, and against the theme of His infinite love for us.
“Anathema” has fallen out of use, Vico, again showing unfolding revelation. We still use the word “excommunicated”, but even excommunication does not limit the forgiveness coming from God. Like Pope Francis said, He always forgives us. I heard the same from our priest 35 years ago. This must be a new concept for you.
When you say “allow charity to exist” do yo mean “forgiveness from the heart” as Christ asked of us?
Yes, there is no way that our forgiveness of others can even come close to the love and forgiveness that comes from Our Father. We can understand and forgive others for how they wrong us, but it is very difficult to overcome the lack of trust that naturally develops in our minds against those who wrong us. We can rest assured that our Father does not have this human condition.
To some extent, I agree with this. If a person is enslaved by addiction or living in some other state of alienation/obsession, then it is better for him to fear some kind of consequence. However, I am starting to think that there is never a place for fear of God’s forgiveness. If God’s forgiveness is feared, it is seen as conditional, which is against the theme of His infinite mercy.
Clearly false. It is not better to maintain unbelief because there is fear. Even we read in Romans 12Vico:
…
If God’s forgiveness is feared, it is seen as conditional, which is against the theme of His infinite mercy. …
I remember something a priest told us long ago. If Jesus is seen by someone as cruel or unforgiving in some way, holding a grudge, it would be better for that person not to believe in Jesus at all. …
The Church has taught us that Fear of the Lord is a virtue. That is not servile fear but filial or chaste fear – a Gift of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 10
In the eyes of the reader, it is punishment. It was a penalty for defiance, carried out by an authority. Giving punishment a euphemism does not change what it is.
I’m not following you. I think that what you are saying is that if a father is cruel to his children, he has also in part been cruel to his grandchildren, because the cruelty may be carried on.
Well, try it. Pick someone that you hold something against, someone who has no want of your forgivness, and try to understand why you would do exactly what they did without putting yourself down. For example, if you say “well, I would do that if I was a complete #%@#”, then this is not understanding, it is condemnation. Try to understand why you would do it in a way that gives a person the benefit of the doubt. There is always a benefit of the doubt, even in the worst case scenario. Jesus saw that people did not know what they were doing.
Forgiveness from the heart does not necessarily involve any kind of “offer” at all. You can forgive a person who you have never met, someone who has offended your values. This someone may have absolutely no idea who you are or care about what you think, but forgiveness from the heart is still extremely helpful for the person who forgives.You can offer it, of course, but if it’s not accepted…
No. In your eyes, it’s punishment. Big difference.
Punishments punish. Consequences deal out consequence. How would you distinguish between the two? How would you assert that what we see are ‘punishment’, as opposed to ‘natural consequence for sin’?
No. What I’m saying is that, if a father takes an action that effects his children, it will naturally effect his grandchildren. It’s not a “carrying on” of cruelty, but rather, just a natural consequence of cause and effect.
Right. It explains why the actions of a human would have an effect on his children and grandchildren.
You’re misunderstanding the argument. I can offer forgiveness. I can do that to anyone. However, if the person doesn’t accept the offer, then forgiveness has not occurred. All that’s happened is that an offer has been rejected. A person can give another the benefit of the doubt all day long… but if that other person doesn’t accept that benefit, then there’s no exchange that has been made.
Absolutely! It demonstrates love on the part of the one who offers! In fact, it is a type of the love God offers us!
Let’s see: Inflicted by God: Yes. Imposed: Yes. Penalty as retribution for an offense: Yes
Was it an “effect”? Yes, but because it was inflicted, imposed, and a penalty, it is also a punishment. If you do not want to see it that way, I can respect that.
And you would harm your own children in this way? Punish them in this way?
It would be false unless it has already occurred in your heart.
If you have forgiven from your heart, then it doesn’t matter if it is “offered” or not, it has indeed occurred. Have you ever forgiven a politician you didn’t like? There is a distinction to be made between forgiveness and reconciliation.
When I say “giving the benefit of the doubt” I am saying that is a means to understanding other people. And actually, when I am going the length of understanding, I give people the benefit of the doubt first, and then I explore all of the possible motives that do not give such “benefit”. I find the good intent behind each and every one if necessary to reach a point of forgiveness from the heart. I bring myself to a point of “I could have done that, for this good intent, given the awareness of the person.”
Which begins with God actually forgiving everyone, before it is even “offered”. Are you seeing the theme of “forgiveness from the heart”, and that the Father, shown us by Jesus, is about mercy?
There is still forgiveness on God’s part, whether accepted or not. God always forgives.Absolutely! It demonstrates love on the part of the one who offers! In fact, it is a type of the love God offers us!
But, if the recipient refuses to receive… then there is no gift – only the offer of a gift. There is no forgiveness – only the offer of forgiveness. There is no salvation – only the offer of salvation.
In keeping with the theme of unconditional love, by “damned” you mean “a person who chooses not to be with God”, because God does not condemn, He always forgives.
Again, in keeping with the theme of God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, CCC 1453 has to do with reconciliation and relationship, not about God’s forgiveness. God always forgives. The word “obtain” involves a two-way relationship.
God’s forgiveness does not depend on the attitude of who is forgiven. Again, this is in keeping with the theme that His forgiveness, which is a matter of love and mercy, is unconditional.
It was absent from Vatican II. Excommunication supplanted it. The whole idea of a person being an “anathema” or such indignity is against the theme of Genesis 1. Saying someone is an “anathema” expresses resentment, not forgiveness, and ironically the concept of “anathema” is basically against the theme of forgiveness.
God also forgave the unrepentant from the cross, those who did not have such desire.
Not to be critical, but you have still not addressed the question whether “preternatural knowledge” included knowing that eating the fruit would harm their own children. So your statement remains as a simple unfounded assertion until you address my question.
The whole idea of someone being kept in hell who wants to be with God sets a limit upon what God can do, making Him less than omnipotent. If the implication is that God actually wants someone to be in hell, then this is a limit on His forgiveness and mercy. This article of the CCC must be read in full to understand the teaching it offers. With God, all things are possible… benevolent things.
Notice that the verse does not exclude our omnipotent and omnibenevolent God the Father crossing the other direction, gathering those He continues to love and forgive when they are ready. This movement on the part of God is very much in keeping with the image presented to us by Pope Benedict, even though he never expressed such a scenario (as far as I know).
I would agree with this, and it is not what the priest was addressing. What is addressed is that if God is presented to a person as having attributes that are the opposite of forgiveness and mercy, in degrees of course, then the person is better off rejecting that which does not reflect the Love of God we can know through introspection and prayer.
Psychologically, it is very difficult to extract desire for revenge from desire to punish wrongdoing. Both come from innate human desire for justice. We call it “revenge” when it appears to an observer as unfair or unjustified, but even a judge in a U.S. court of law can carry out what in the mind is essentially revenge. The death penalty, for example, comes from desire for justice, but it is also vengeful. All of it comes from desire for payment.
Would you treat your own children this way? Harm them in this way?
In your experience, have you forgiven someone who has not accepted such forgiveness? If so, if the person has not accepted it, do you go back to holding a grudge?
Take a look at this verse:
Except that, in the same breath, God announces that salvation is still going to be offered to His people. The “prototevangelium” itself is your proof that this isn’t ‘punishment’, but ‘consequence’!
No, it’s certainly the case that God imposes the consequence (just like parents impose consequences on their children when they mess up). However, the consequence is meant to be medicinal, not punitive. After all, that’s what a good parent does!
I’m almost afraid to ask this, but…