Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God?

[frangiuliano115]

Because we have a freewill.

Yes, I’ll take a longer look at romans, it seems to be a favorite of yours, I can’t remember all of it.

One priest I know is completely overwhelmed when he does a baptism at Mass for a child, so over joyed to behold a beautiful new life, makes everyone remember how precious life is.

Hurricanes are part of the natural world.

We are going off the topic now.

Thanks

God bless you too.

PS… are you from UK?

Good morning simpleas,

I’m here in Italy. Are we neighbors??

I miss christian friends from back when I lived in the states. Italians are not as christian as people might think. Thus, here I am. Had to stop teaching catechism last year for personal reason and have a small bible study left and it’s just not enough for me!

Romans explains the Sin Nature of man. Then it explains how to deal with it, since it really cannot be destroyed. Well, maybe some big saints destroyed it but I wonder about that too. I kind of doubt it. I think Paul would doubt it too and he wrote the basic theology for christianity.

Priests are always joyful when baptizing a new christian. As am I and you too, I’m sure. You sound like a really nice person.

You speak of free will. But what are we choosing from? A good or an evil. Where does that evil come from? The wind. It could be soft and caressing OR it could be a hurricane. Where does the hurricane come from?

Romans will give you the answer. I know you can’t trust me. I’m not saying that man is evil or depraved. Sometimes I speak fast and assume people know terminology and that I’ll be forgiven for misspeaking. I should be more careful even though this is a catholic site, seems like we have differeing opinions on concepts. Some concepts, however, are not open to opinin; although the differening opinion would not cause one to be lost.

If you’re interested, I would tell you why I think it’s important to understand the book of Romans.

God bless
Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR SIMPLEAS

BTW, you just don’t decide to have a bible study. It has to be okayed by the priest. Which means that he has to know you - which many around here do, not only because you have to know church doctrine to teach catechism and the bible, but he has to know that you know and are not teaching incorrect concepts.

Just to clarify. I don’t know it all - there’s too much.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Think about the happiest moment of your life and freeze it. That is eternity. That moment where time seems to stop (and you wish it did, to preserve the moment and the feelings) - that is eternity.

There will be no days - no tomorrow, no yesterday, no today. It will all be about “now”, the present. You’ll spend “years” with your buddies, but it will feel like the party just started. You’ll eat your favorite food for the nth time, and it will feel like the very first time you are tasting it.

That is, if there will be such things there - my Baptist friend said it is just an eternal feeling of happiness. Who knows…

Happiness and complete knowledge.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran,

I don’t know how I missed this one, but it is pertinent. The problem with your statement above is this:

Mark 11:25New International Version (NIV)

25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

So, is God asking us to forgive those we hold anything against, but is not doing the same Himself? In addition:

Matthew 5:48New International Version (NIV)

48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So, if the Heavenly Father is perfect, yet holds things against us, Jesus is contradicting Himself. He is asking us to be perfect like God, and asking us to forgive everyone we hold something against, which would be contrary to God’s “perfection”.

Do you see the problem? We say “hallowed by thy name”. Forgiveness leads to holiness, and God is holy. If a god holds something against us, he is not holy, not whole, he is preferring a non-holiness.

All I know is that God is a omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient. God is love. I know that from within. Suffering leads to awareness. There are a lot of things I simply don’t know the answer to, like “why do we learn so slowly?’” and “why are we born ignorant?”

This is from a post you wrote to simpleas:

Man does harm because he has the God-given appetites, the capacity for blindness, and is not omniscient. We do harm because we want stuff and we become blind to the humanity of others when we want. In addition, we are compelled to punish wrongdoing, and we are blind to the humanity of those we wish to punish.

Yes, it is possible to overcome the blindness, but it takes awareness - and then discipline. Here is the discipline:

Anytime you have a negative feeling toward anyone, you’re living in
an illusion. There’s something seriously wrong with you. You’re not
seeing reality. Something inside of you has to change. But what do
we generally do when we have a negative feeling? “He is to blame,
she is to blame. She’s got to change”. No! The world’s all right. The
one who has to change is YOU.

Fr. Anthony de Mello, sj

The Church teaching is that man is inherently good, as stated in Genesis. However, the Church says that man is “stained” which implies that man is not all-that-good-anymore. It is a mixed message. That is the other reason why I say that it is okay for Catholics to think of man as “evil” or “wicked”. The labels represent an underlying resentment toward the human condition, and assertions from the hierarchy will not touch this resentment. What is needed is a reconciliation within the human, which takes time. So, in the mean time, is the person who resents humanity to be kicked out? No, because all of us resent humanity at various times in our lives. The answer is to inspire people to see the beauty in what it means to be human. The beauty of our nature.

Do you see the beauty, Fran?

Thanks for your response.

UFFA One Sheep.

You’re so hooked on your idea that you don’t even LISTEN to others.

So what’s the point? I have to go do some housework now.

Just quick. There’s no such word as OMNIBENEVOLENT.

There are three omni’s:

omnipotent
omnipresent
omniscient

Aren’t three enough?

I know you mean that God is all good. Maybe you could write to the magesterium down in Rome and see if we could add that 4th omni.

Fran

 

[pocaracas]

Think about the happiest moment of your life and freeze it. That is eternity. That moment where time seems to stop (and you wish it did, to preserve the moment and the feelings) - that is eternity.

There will be no days - no tomorrow, no yesterday, no today. It will all be about “now”, the present. You’ll spend “years” with your buddies, but it will feel like the party just started. You’ll eat your favorite food for the nth time, and it will feel like the very first time you are tasting it.

That is, if there will be such things there - my Baptist friend said it is just an eternal feeling of happiness. Who knows…

Are you saying a person’s perception of time and experience becomes skewed in a way that’s even more mind boggling than Einstein’s relativity?
How does that skewing happen? Is it externally imposed? Is it self-imposed? Can it be manipulated?

Oh… who knows?..

 

[pocaracas]

You are starting to affect me! Pocaracas! Oops, I used it.

Hehe… you can shorten it to poca, if you like… but, then, it becomes meaningless, except as a diminutive of my nick.

Accurate representations on matters of spirituality are hard to come by. We can’t prove or disprove the existence of God, we can only evaluate theories of the cosmos to see if they make sense. The problem is, no view makes sense out of everything. And some views, are, well, more seemingly “realistic” because they deny anything “unproven”, but the absence of meaning makes life seem purposeless and/or depressing. So, I like a better story, and I choose to see the world through that story. No harm done - unless I defend the story with blind zeal. But such “blind zeal” goes against my version of the story.

I agree that, as long as no harm is done on others, any story can be followed… to each his own.
But when a story mandates harming others, while claiming that they’re not really being harmed, they’re just being pushed to some judge in the story, well… there I think we should all stand up to the people who stick by such a story.

So you gave me 3 cases. Here is my counter:

1. As a student of psychology and human/primate behavior, I have come to see the human as beautiful. This is a matter of awareness. No one who “owns” another human sees and appreciates their beauty, at least not in the sense of seeing that leads to respect of common nature and autonomy. The owner does not know what he is doing, he is ignorant.
2. When a slave, or anyone for that matter, does not respect (comply) with our wishes, this may trigger an internal rule violation, and when this happens we feel resentment and the compulsion to punish. We are temporarily blind to the humanity of the violator. This blindness is a non-knowing.
3. A person who hurts others for the fun of it has not an inkling of the value of their “plaything”. This again is a matter of ignorance, lack of awareness. In the case of the sociopath or psychopath, their inability to empathize has disabled their ability to develop a conscience and awareness of humanity. A person without a conscience is not typically making choices from a position considered “knowingly”.

Retort? Does the slave owner knowingly and willingly cause harm?

1. I think many owners knew they held people, but didn’t care. There was a nice income attached and that was more valuable than the person’s autonomy. Blinded by greed, one may say.
2. That seems like a stretching of the concept of “knowing”. Between the slave and the owner, there is a sort of arrangement - “you do what I say, or else…”. The punishment comes from breaking the rules of that arrangement. It seems to me that this is standard procedure for anyone in a position of authority - a parent to a child; law enforcement to a crowd; etc…
3. Again, maybe they just don’t care. Their perception of value is perhaps shifted elsewhere… money? How do people ascribe value to something? How do people ascribe value to others? Is your (or mine) perception of a human life’s value the correct one? Should the value of an animal’s life be on par with a human’s? How about a plant’s life? A fungus? A bacteria? A virus?
   Our immune system is constantly harming other microorganisms, in an attempt to keep them from harming us. Perhaps harming other life forms is inherent to life itself… survival of the fittest.

Finally, “Does the slave owner knowingly and willingly cause harm?”
Willingly, yes… he does have his free will, doesn’t he?
Knowingly, under your stretching of the concept, no. He doesn’t ascribe much value to the slave and, hence, knows not of the value we’d ascribe him.
But we can turn things around and ask: are we in the right when we ascribe value to all human life? Are Buddhists in the right when they ascribe value to all animal life? Can we be wrong and the slave owner be right?

In the mind boggling enormity of the cosmos… of what value is a human life?
Is the owner’s life, then, of about as much value as the slave - near zero?

 

[frangiuliano115]

Are you saying a person’s perception of time and experience becomes skewed in a way that’s even more mind boggling than Einstein’s relativity?
How does that skewing happen? Is it externally imposed? Is it self-imposed? Can it be manipulated?

Oh… who knows?..

Here we go Pocaracas…

Are you saying Einstein knows more than God?

And please have some respect for me with your “sex is good for headaches” comment.
The reason I had a headache is because I’m not so young anymore and must help my daughter with a handicapped child.

And anyway, headaches do happen; I’ll bet even to you.

Fran

 

[simpleas]

Good morning simpleas,

I’m here in Italy. Are we neighbors??

I miss christian friends from back when I lived in the states. Italians are not as christian as people might think. Thus, here I am. Had to stop teaching catechism last year for personal reason and have a small bible study left and it’s just not enough for me!

Romans explains the Sin Nature of man. Then it explains how to deal with it, since it really cannot be destroyed. Well, maybe some big saints destroyed it but I wonder about that too. I kind of doubt it. I think Paul would doubt it too and he wrote the basic theology for christianity.

Priests are always joyful when baptizing a new christian. As am I and you too, I’m sure. You sound like a really nice person.

You speak of free will. But what are we choosing from? A good or an evil. Where does that evil come from? The wind. It could be soft and caressing OR it could be a hurricane. Where does the hurricane come from?

Romans will give you the answer. I know you can’t trust me. I’m not saying that man is evil or depraved. Sometimes I speak fast and assume people know terminology and that I’ll be forgiven for misspeaking. I should be more careful even though this is a catholic site, seems like we have differeing opinions on concepts. Some concepts, however, are not open to opinin; although the differening opinion would not cause one to be lost.

If you’re interested, I would tell you why I think it’s important to understand the book of Romans.

God bless
Fran

So you are Italian, but you used to live in the US, cool. I started to read Romans last night, some verse obviously are familiar, others not so. Yes Adam is in there to explain why we all are sinners, and then we read about what we need to avoid in order to remain in grace etc.

Freewill : the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
I still have a slight problem with being told we have a freewill, we own our own freewill, yet we didn’t get to use this freewill as a gift from God.
But that’s probably for another thread.

Why do you ask about hurricanes?

I don’t know where evil comes from.

 

[simpleas]

FOR SIMPLEAS

BTW, you just don’t decide to have a bible study. It has to be okayed by the priest. Which means that he has to know you - which many around here do, not only because you have to know church doctrine to teach catechism and the bible, but he has to know that you know and are not teaching incorrect concepts.

Just to clarify. I don’t know it all - there’s too much.

Fran

Of course, we need people who know how to explain the bible and the CCC

 

[pocaracas]

Here we go Pocaracas…

Are you saying Einstein knows more than God?

Well… one is dead… the other I don’t know.

And please have some respect for me with your “sex is good for headaches” comment.
The reason I had a headache is because I’m not so young anymore and must help my daughter with a handicapped child.

And anyway, headaches do happen; I’ll bet even to you.

Fran

Sorry, old Fran… I wasn’t aware of your age, nor your troubles.
Some would argue that old age is no excuse not to have fun under the sheets… I certainly hope to keep at it for as long as possible!

As for headaches… I don’t get them…
I do have, on occasion, a migraine, always preceded by an aura of sorts appearing in my vision… it’s like an arc, made up of many zigzagging lines, each line with a different color and these colors keep changing…
It’s a bit annoying as it tends to cover the middle of my vision, so I can’t read very well when this happens.
This image (thelaymansanswerstoeverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/6_Becky_aura_migraine.jpg) is the closest representation I’ve seen of this aura… but it’s still lacking… the lines are much thinner and always changing color… and I don’t see squares.
Most of the times I get the aura, I don’t get a migraine… but when I do get a migraine, I had one of these auras about half an hour before.
It seems to be due to some chemical imbalance in the brain that “travels” from the back (visual cortex, where it messes with visual perception) to the front (where it causes pain).
One wonders what people from long ago would think about this sort of phenomenon…

 

[NovusFidem]

Are you saying a person’s perception of time and experience becomes skewed in a way that’s even more mind boggling than Einstein’s relativity?
How does that skewing happen? Is it externally imposed? Is it self-imposed? Can it be manipulated?

Oh… who knows?..

Will our perception become skewed when we face a situation where there is no time nor space - the same situation that existed BEFORE the Big Bang, and that still eludes the understanding of famous theoretical physicians?

I’m pretty sure our perception will be completely destroyed in the process. Weren’t Mayans flabbergasted when they first saw men on horses, when Europeans first set foot on the shores? Weren’t indigenous south-Americans mind-blown when they saw a mirror for the first time, when the first Jesuits got to Brazil?

Yes, our pitiful limited perception of reality will be utterly confused when we first get to understand and MEET eternity for the first time. In fact, our perception is skewed right now, since we don’t really understand it completely. Our perception is skewed like humanity’s was when we still believed in a plane Planet. Skewed like the Greeks were, when they still thought thunder was Zeus having fun. Or, as the Allegory of the Cave proposes, we are like people looking at shadows projected on the wall, not really able to turn around and see what is really going on.

Some people already live in the Eternity, living for the now, finding grace and happiness in seeing the same person (husband, sibling, friend) they just saw yesterday, in the same activities they did yesterday. They simply stopped counting the days, knowing it could all last forever or end tomorrow, and are all the more happy for it. One theoretical physicist (because people love physics > theology) even proposed that tomorrow and today do not exist as a physical reality (which so far is a given), they only exist as a psychological reality.

Will it be externally or self-imposed? I dunno, I really don’t care, so why don’t you think about it? When you achieve some new knowledge, is it God (or the World) **imposing **it onto you or is it happening due to your own acceptance of the facts given (by God/the World)?

 

[Vico]

Come on Vico. I know you can do this.

You were THERE and had that important conversation with Judas so you’re going to know what no theologian will definitely state, but only give an opinion.

Fran

There are three parts to answer the question:

1. 
   *]what is knowledge
   *]what is willfulness
   *]what is rejection.
   
   This focuses on the first, in the context of Matt 26:23-24
   23 But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. 24 The Son of man indeed goeth, *as it is written of him: but wo to that man, by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: It were better for that man if he had not been born.
   
   And John 13:18
   18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the Scripture may be fulfilled: *He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me.
   Haydock Commentary - Ver. 18. Shall lift up his heel against me. It is the sense of those words, (Psalm xl. 10.) hath supplanted me; and they were spoken of Judas’s sin in betraying Christ. (Witham) — Jesus Christ applies in this place to the perfidy of Judas, that which David appears to have said on occasion of the perfidy of Achitophel, who was thus a figure of the perfidious Judas. (Bible de Vence)

 

[OneSheep]

Not going off on a tangent. You have not acknowledged the teaching yet.

Good Morning, Vico!

I will comply with your desire to take me on the tangent of acknowledging the teaching. I acknowledge the teaching you presented, though it is essentially irrelevant to this thread. I repeat, this thread is not about sin, it is about understanding and forgiveness.

So, the process of understanding Judas is exactly the sort of activity this thread is meant to address. It is not a tangent!

So, why did Judas turn Jesus over to the authorities?

If you do not want to participate, no problem brother. Perhaps you have said what you want to say, and now you have it covered. Thanks, I know you are well intended.

Peace and Good Will

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning One Sheep,

Shouldn’t a father telling a child not to smoke be enough?
Do you think a child REALLY understands WHY he shouldn’t smoke?

No. It just looks cool and let’s you be a part of the crowd.

Good Morning Fran

Did you see post 309? I am picking and choosing from these posts because there is too much to address. I spent almost 6 hrs writing yesterday!

A child could understand why he shouldn’t smoke, yes. Having a close relative or friend with cancer would help. And yes, it “should” be enough for the father to tell his child not to smoke, but every person wants some autonomy, and in order to take ownership of the rule it is helpful to give the child adequate reason.

One Sheep,

Come on!

You really think the pharisees thought they were doing the right thing?
I already replied to this. Do you not agree with me? I wish you’d answer every now and then.

Is this why the sanhedrin met in the evening, which was not lawful.
Within 24 hrs of the execustion. Which was not lawful.
With no real witnesses, which was not lawful.

Do you think they broke all these rules because they thought they were doing the right thing?

Well, if I were to make the assertion that they did think they were doing the right thing, you would not take my word for it, right? And I do not have the expectation, or even the request, that you take my word for it. Sooo… We start with the question:

Why did the pharisees and Sanhedrin execute Jesus? We can start with that question, and then see if they thought they were doing the “right thing”.

God Bless.

 

[grannymh]

See One Sheep.
We agree on so much.
So I still don’t get where our misunderstanding is.
You’ve got me hooked though, I must say that.
Will keep following.

Fran

Here is a simple practical understandable answer to
“See One Sheep.
We agree on so much.
So I still don’t get where our misunderstanding is.
You’ve got me hooked though, I must say that.
Will keep following.”
In the days before spell check and Google, a good proofreader looked for what was missing. If that proofreader was also an investigative journalist, it was extremely essential to look for what was missing. I am referring to the days before e-mails when I had to slip into a restricted area which had real folders in real cabinets. Actually, I was only verifying one item in what would be considered a background check. Still, that one item was an essential part of the truth of an article.

To understand the depth of OneSheep’s thread, we need to put on our explorer hats and look for the missing truth, that is, the missing item of information. In my humble opinion, finding the missing information about the Divinity of God is the best answer to misunderstanding.

There are tons of discussions about the human in the thread title. Still, when it comes to the Person being rejected, what is the missing information about God? Granted, we are very familiar with the downside of God. We all know how badly God acted when the first mortal sin was committed, and how despicable is the fact that the first sin affected human nature. Naturally, we look for a different interpretation such as God finally recognized human stupidity and forgave everyone past, present, and future, without investigating the human’s choice for forgiveness.

OneSheep has done his part in presenting information about human nature. What is needed is information about the Divinity of God to clear up any misunderstanding.

As a student, I learned Catholic doctrines without the benefit of Scripture and the works of Fathers, Doctors, Saints, and Poets. The presumption was the existence of God and the existence of His visible Catholic Church on earth. Somewhere, I did learn about the adventures of Augustine. In high school, I learned the first centuries of the struggling Catholic Church and, of course, the Reformation and where the Reformers chose to live. In university, I took a metaphysics class which went in one ear and out the other. It was the amazing description of Transubstantiation which had me skipping when I left class. Currently, I use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, and the first three chapters of Genesis as sources for Catholic teachings.

Fran,
As a result of my hit and miss Catholic Education, I would first like to listen to you about the Divinity of God. Of course, I welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut of others. It is from “others” that I am catching up with Catholicism. Thank you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Did you see my post 264? I gave two versions of why Jesus suffered and died on the cross.

Please critique that response, okay? I want to know what you think.

BTW: that is not where I was going with Judas. Can we address poor widdle Judas? Why did Judas turn Jesus over to the authorities?

Thanks!

Actually, you didn’t answer my question, which is why I repeated it. You gave two views on humanity/human nature, neither one of which addressed WHY Jesus suffered and died for us.

That’s why I had to repeat my question. You didn’t answer it, and I don’t want to ‘critique’ something which didn’t answer me in the first place.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I

'm just a bit worried that you think God is a Man.

Fran

I’m a little more worried that One Sheep thinks man is a god!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Pocaracas,

I agree that, as long as no harm is done on others, any story can be followed… to each his own.
But when a story mandates harming others, while claiming that they’re not really being harmed, they’re just being pushed to some judge in the story, well… there I think we should all stand up to the people who stick by such a story.

Agreed.

In the mind boggling enormity of the cosmos… of what value is a human life?
Is the owner’s life, then, of about as much value as the slave - near zero?

I am starting with this here, because it is significant. As I explained, from the perspective of a scientist, an observer of humanity, I see human life as having an infinite value, it is a beautiful thing, humanity. This is going to be the most basic difference between our perspectives. Perception of value comes from observation of the beauty, in my experience. It is not a “reasoned” thing. There is a resentment-based argument for disvalue, put forth by the “fire and brimstone” camp. Hopefully you have not been subtly influenced by them.

1. I think many owners knew they held people, but didn’t care. There was a nice income attached and that was more valuable than the person’s autonomy. Blinded by greed, one may say.

I agree, greed also triggers a blindness. Blindness does not indicate a “knowingly” in my book.

1. That seems like a stretching of the concept of “knowing”. Between the slave and the owner, there is a sort of arrangement - “you do what I say, or else…”. The punishment comes from breaking the rules of that arrangement. It seems to me that this is standard procedure for anyone in a position of authority - a parent to a child; law enforcement to a crowd; etc…

But do you agree that we are a bit blinded when we are compelled to punish? It is a human thing. And again, blindness does not indicate a “knowingly”. I don’t think it is a stretch because without triggered blindness, humans do not do violence to one another. It is a matter of understanding why people do what they do.

1. Again, maybe they just don’t care. Their perception of value is perhaps shifted elsewhere… money? How do people ascribe value to something? How do people ascribe value to others? Is your (or mine) perception of a human life’s value the correct one? Should the value of an animal’s life be on par with a human’s? How about a plant’s life? A fungus? A bacteria? A virus?
   Our immune system is constantly harming other microorganisms, in an attempt to keep them from harming us. Perhaps harming other life forms is inherent to life itself… survival of the fittest.

Finally, “Does the slave owner knowingly and willingly cause harm?”
Willingly, yes… he does have his free will, doesn’t he?
Knowingly, under your stretching of the concept, no. He doesn’t ascribe much value to the slave and, hence, knows not of the value we’d ascribe him.
But we can turn things around and ask: are we in the right when we ascribe value to all human life? Are Buddhists in the right when they ascribe value to all animal life? Can we be wrong and the slave owner be right?

Yes, if they do not value the human, it is my perspective that they are coming from a position of lack of awareness. They do not value what they do not know. Studies with infants show that perception of value is related to familiarity.

Are we “right” with this value? Well, as soon as we use the word “right”, we are in the “conscience” mode, or perhaps we are suggesting that there is an absolute truth. I am in the “absolute truth” camp, but I do not defend it zealously, like I said. My sense of value comes from familiarity and appreciation of the functionality of the human. I also see that all of the world problems with human-on-human violence begin with blindness and a lack of awareness of human value.

You make a good point, though, even though I may know a particular virus quite well, does it have value in terms of “do I wish to protect it”? Not if it is a threat, no.

I do rely on a bit of blindness in order to remain omnivorous.

So, this thread was meant to encourage understanding, and hopefully forgiveness.

There are many examples of “religious people” doing evil. Given the definition I presented of “knowingly” (hopefully you can buy-in to the justification for the “stretch”), can you see that those who did/do harm also acted from lack of awareness or blindness?

Thanks for your response! When I was looking up your handle, I saw the name as a moderator on a different forum. Is that you?

 

[OneSheep]

Actually, you didn’t answer my question, which is why I repeated it. You gave two views on humanity/human nature, neither one of which addressed WHY Jesus suffered and died for us.

That’s why I had to repeat my question. You didn’t answer it, and I don’t want to ‘critique’ something which didn’t answer me in the first place.

Good Morning

Let me start with what I wrote in post 264:

I can provide two alternatives, both acceptable, IMO. I have decided, (tentatively) to name the first view the “organic” view. This is the view that man is depraved or somewhat depraved, that God is/was angry at us and we did not deserve anything but the worst, or certainly not a good life or an afterlife. This theology I am coining “organic” because it is very human to feel guilt, very natural, and we are all a bit superstitious in terms of acts of nature (storms, earthquakes, etc.) it makes some sense to conclude that God, in His anger, is out to punish us. In this alternative,** Jesus comes to save us, to free us from what we deserve by “taking the hit” from the cross; like a sacrificial lamb offered to appease God, a “debt was paid”. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change God’s view toward man.**

In the alternative view, which I am for now coining the “supernatural” view, God forgives us “before always”, even before He hit the “create” button. Christ did not come to erase sin, but instead Christ’s incarnation was totally independent of man’s sin, that the incarnation was not dependent on man sinning.** In this view, Christ’s coming served to show man that He (as seen as the Father) does not hold anything against us, indeed forgives unconditionally, as proven from the Cross.** For what could be a worse death that torture, and yet from this position He forgives, showing us, by His observation/assertion, that we do not know what we are doing, and He did so without any sign of repentance from the crowd. He showed us something humanly possible, a perfection found in the Father, an unconditional love.** This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change man’s view toward God.** (But also, in my mind, serves to change man’s view toward man.)

I also like this explanation:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

So, I am taking it that you want me to elaborate? Please ask a more specific question. I am not trying to dodge anything here, but I’m not sure what you want. In the alternative I prefer, Christ suffered and died to show us that God loves without condition. The suffering and dying was not a “payment” of any sort, it was the arrangement necessary to get the point across. In addition, it was necessary that Jesus had to become unpopular, so that He shed that aspect of “riches”. Also, He meant to show us that we are to have a life after death. There is so much meaning in the cross. He gave us the means to forgive in a mature way, to truly see that those who do evil do not know what they are doing.

Love and Peace,

Po’ widdo OneSheep

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep has done his part in presenting information about human nature. What is needed is information about the Divinity of God to clear up any misunderstanding.

Okay, Granny, where did I say that God isn’t divine? (And isn’t God, by definition, divine?) At this point, Granny, your insinuations are becoming uncharitable again. We are called by our Church, and this forum, to be charitable and give people the benefit of the doubt.

Why are you doing this?

I’m a little more worried that One Sheep thinks man is a god!

Actually, I consider my outlook Panentheistic. That is, the view that God is in everything. This view acknowledges God’s autonomy and our own, not simply saying “God is everything.” Panentheism is the typical Catholic view.

Now, back to the purpose of this thread…

Fran brought up the Pharisees. Did they K&WRG? Maybe we can all take a stab at that together. To begin, we can start with a question:

Why did the Pharisees reject Jesus?

Thanks, I really want to keep things focused.