Forgiveness paradox, maybe?

[jon4545]

“I assume by “the person” you mean someone who has observed the sinner or who has been wronged by the sinner? Otherwise what you’ve said doesn’t make much sense to me.”

By person i meant myself… I was simply wondering if my idea of the unforgivable sin was itself unforgivable(a blasphemy of the holy spirit)

Since, of course, only God has perfect “knowledge” as you say… how can we be sure anyone goes to hell to begin with?

What’s the point in even arguing what is unknowable then(what does and does not get on into heaven)?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You’re right, we shouldn’t argue about it. Only God knows who is and isn’t in Heaven.

 

[jon4545]

“Original sin is a confusing term; we’re really not inheriting responsibility for the sin of Adam and Eve, but rather the fallen state of mankind.”

Even if my idea on original sin is flawed… people are still “inherently sinful,” right?..Does it “defy” god to not “believe” in this idea?

My understanding of original sin(from what I’ve heard from Christian friends) is that men is flawed and perpetually drawn to vice… he needs “salvation” because he is not perfect and innocent…

i mean, is it not possible to cultivate such a state where the possibility of “sin” becomes non-existent?.. a state of perfect charity and holiness?

 

[Shin]

Well this is interesting! Thank you!

Let’s run with unconditional absolute forgiveness… what are the practical consequences of this, in this life and in eternity?

 

[jon4545]

"You’re right, we shouldn’t argue about it. Only God knows who is and isn’t in Heaven. "

Is there not something monstrously sinister and immoral and anti-christian even, when so many churches preach fear of hell?

I haven’t been to church in a LONG time… but I am curious if the practice of instilling fear is taught at all in Catholic churches any more… and if not, does the Catholic church actively fight churches that do? Should it not be a moral imperative to discredit churches that teach fear?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

“Original sin is a confusing term; we’re really not inheriting responsibility for the sin of Adam and Eve, but rather the fallen state of mankind.”

Even if my idea on original sin is flawed… people are still “inherently sinful,” right?..Does it “defy” god to not “believe” in this idea?

My understanding of original sin(from what I’ve heard from Christian friends) is that men is flawed and perpetually drawn to vice… he needs “salvation” because he is not perfect and innocent…

i mean, is it not possible to cultivate such a state where the possibility of “sin” becomes non-existent?.. a state of perfect charity and holiness?

You’re right, you can’t believe that. No, it’s impossible to get to a state where you’d never ever ever sin. Yes, that would be a sin, I believe a mortal one. You’d be denying a dogma of the Church.

Perhaps you should look at the Eastern Catholic understanding of original sin. They still believe in it (it is a dogma) but their understanding of it is different from Roman Catholic and still perfectly valid.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hold on there. I never said don’t preach fear of Hell. I just said it’s fruitless to discuss who will and won’t go to Hell right now. We should do our best to prevent as many people as possible from commiting mortal sin, because if you die in a state of urepentent mortal sin you go to Hell. The key word there is “urepentent”. We have no idea who has and hasn’t repented even at the very moment of their death.

 

[jon4545]

Well this is interesting! Thank you!

Let’s run with unconditional absolute forgiveness… what are the practical consequences of this, in this life and in eternity?

In eternity: You live a life of compassion and giving without regard for individual interest, and are remembered as such(and thus God is remembered as such…for your understanding of charity, compassion etc follows from an understanding of this unconditional forgiveness, of God).

In this life:

For one, I would see such an interpretation of unconditional forgiveness as being able to reach a far greater number of people… If you take away fear of hell, you don’t necessarily open the doors to immoral behavior. I also think it’s a very difficult state of mind to cultivate, however… most people judge and condemn on a very regular basis, Christians included… the problem with Christians is that they always have the possibility of correcting their “sinful” and “guilty” behavior by going to the Church… they do not see it as a “moral imperative” to correct their “sinful” behavior by cultivating a more ascetic state of mind.

Forgiveness is, like someone here said, something that is received… but it also something that is given… and, in this life, one of the greatest things one can do is forgive and accept… turning a negation into an affirmation… so is there really any greater “need” in life than to cultivate this state?

Compassion has to be something more than… “accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour” and acting like some crazy possessed Midwestern Evangelical(not that anyone here is like that or that all Christians in the Midwest are like that)

With the idea of even the unforgivable sin being forgivable(within your own personal understand of God atleast…for God’s “knowledge” is unknowable) you get closer to God… you can cultivate a degree of compassion and forgiveness that transcends typical normal human behavior. It seems self-limiting to understand Christianity with “limits” like the unforgivable sin… I mean… Towards what end, what good does it do, to think or “know” that someone else is going to hell, or even yourself? It is absurd. It only derails to process of cultivating compassion… For all we know, maybe no one is going to hell, maybe most people are… what does this matter… all it does it further entrench the world in an “us vs them” mentality of hate.

I’m not even saying the Church doesn’t stress compassion or love…It does, however, seem to stress “differences” among people… and their different “callings”… how they can “service” God… All the while, the Priests are the one’s with the closest spiritual relationship(insofar as people go to the priest to get absolved)… go to the church, Priest tells ya to say some hail marys and try to be a better person, etc et…

Of course, it’s hard to admit that everyone might not be capable of such unconditional forgiveness…and thus the need for spiritual advisers for absolution…but this idea reeks of defeat… I’m not saying there is anything wrong with spiritual advisers per say, I’m just saying the role should be to guide one towards this ascetic ideal…unconditional forgiveness and acceptance of the behaviors of your fellow man… Not… “some Christians should cultivate this state of mind… other Christians better serve god through work or whatever”… This idea of differences in spirituality seems to limit the scope of compassion ultimately possible in society and it seems antithetical to true equality… The Catholic Church seems too political and not spiritual enough for me…maybe i’m wrong, i dunno… I had a great uncle that was a Jesuit priest believe it or not, hehe.

What does it even mean to be “close to God” for people here?

Someone said that when people adopt Buddhism their behavior changes… but when they adopt Christianity, their behavior stays the same… they are just “saved”

 

[jon4545]

You’re right, you can’t believe that. No, it’s impossible to get to a state where you’d never ever ever sin. Yes, that would be a sin, I believe a mortal one. You’d be denying a dogma of the Church.

Perhaps you should look at the Eastern Catholic understanding of original sin. They still believe in it (it is a dogma) but their understanding of it is different from Roman Catholic and still perfectly valid.

I guess I’m royal screwed then, lol. I believe such a state is possible and should be striven for. What is the dogma I would be denying, btw? The only way I guess I would “submit” is if God showed me in His perfection, how my ideal of perfection was “imperfect.”

However, I do not see “perfection” or holiness as in the same league as God himself, but simply the state beyond temptation, a state of compassion that is “as close as one can get” to the compassion of God," without the need to always have to “fight” temptation, because you’re so “sinful” by nature… because you understand everything as being unconditionally forgiven.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, you’re denying the dogma of original sin in a sense-that there is a way we could possibly overcome our fallen state. We can’t-but Jesus can and did.

 

[Alindawyl]

I guess I’m royal screwed then, lol. I believe such a state is possible and should be striven for. What is the dogma I would be denying, btw? The only way I guess I would “submit” is if God showed me in His perfection, how my ideal of perfection was “imperfect.”

However, I do not see “perfection” or holiness as in the same league as God himself, but simply the state beyond temptation, a state of compassion that is “as close as one can get” to the compassion of God," without the need to always have to “fight” temptation, because you’re so “sinful” by nature… because you understand everything as being unconditionally forgiven.

God does not forgive unconditionally. There has to be repentance. If God knows a sinner is not repentant, then God permits them to remain in a state of sin.

But that’s God. Unlike God, we humans can’t see into another’s heart or see the future. That’s why we are called to personally forgive sinners and pray for them. We must always hold out hope for a change of heart, even if only at the end of their life as they draw their last breath.

 

[Lrning]

However, I do not see “perfection” or holiness as in the same league as God himself, but simply the state beyond temptation, a state of compassion that is “as close as one can get” to the compassion of God," without the need to always have to “fight” temptation, because you’re so “sinful” by nature… because you understand everything as being unconditionally forgiven.

Jon, you have me completely confused. Are you trying to figure out if you could achieve a level of perfection in your life that would assure Heaven/prevent Hell? Where is God in this quest for perfect compassion? And where did you come up with your belief in God’s “unconditional” forgiveness?

 

[jon4545]

“Jon, you have me completely confused. Are you trying to figure out if you could achieve a level of perfection in your life that would assure Heaven/prevent Hell?”

No, I was trying to figure out if there is a way to get around the unforgivable sin(see the first post in this thread).

“And where did you come up with your belief in God’s “unconditional” forgiveness?”

Again, see my first post.

As far as, “where is God” is concerned… I don’t actually “believe” in God, … I was trying to convey an idea of unconditional forgiveness that might be inline with the Bible… which i guess, is clearly not.

What i guess I was getting at that I didnt’ really explain, was the idea that humility can be gained without “belief” in God… and thus submission and acceptance. The “unknowable” itself is enough without the belief in the one and only god. From this it’s possible to cultivate the unconditional forgiveness…

i guess what i was really asking… is it possible for a Christian to see an unbeliever being saved(in so far as one could take psalm 103:3 as having greater significance than the other passages I outlined). Even this becomes moot, insofar as we have already agreed on the fact that no one can know who will and will not go to hell… can one even be “sure” 100% certain that those actions outlined as “unforgivable”… the unrepentant heart… lead to hell? One can only be sure that these actions “most likely” lead to hell…

 

[Alindawyl]

i guess what i was really asking… is it possible for a Christian to see an unbeliever being saved(in so far as one could take psalm 103:3 as having greater significance than the other passages I outlined). Even this becomes moot, insofar as we have already agreed on the fact that no one can know who will and will not go to hell… can one even be “sure” 100% certain that those actions outlined as “unforgivable”… the unrepentant heart… lead to hell? One can only be sure that these actions “most likely” lead to hell…

There is no uncertainty about the objective criteria. There is no “Dying with unrepentant mortal sin on one’s soul most likely leads to hell”. Dying with unrepentant mortal sin on one’s soul most definitely leads to hell. 100% certainty. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The uncertainty lies in whether or not any particular person who has died actually had unrepentant mortal sin on their soul. We would have to be able to see into that person’s heart at the time of their death to know, and only God can do that. So out of charity, we do not claim that any particular person is in hell.

Imagine how awful it would be to claim “Soandso is in hell”, only to find out that they had had a conversion of heart with their dying breath and are actually in heaven. More than one saint has been given a private revelation by God that this very thing has happened to a person we would normally assume, without being able to see into their heart, died with unrepentant mortal sin on their soul. Saint Padre Pio once told a widow that God revealed to him that her husband, who had killed himself years earlier by driving off a bridge, repented before the car landed and was in purgatory rather than hell despite having committed suicide.

THAT is why we do not presume any particular person is in hell.

 

[jon4545]

Just to be entirely clear…

What I understand now is that the “unforgivable sin” is not as simple as just refusing forgiveness.

In order not to commit the unforgivable sin, one must actually “believe” in God, because w/o this belief, you are “necessarily” unrepentant…

Even believing and God and denying original sin seems like it would land one in hell(does this mean Muslims and Jews go to hell?..by the logic expressed in this thread, it would seem so)… only through the medium of Christ can one get to heaven, right?

I am VERY interested how this idea of denying original sin and the belief that some Christians have that Jews get into heaven is possible.

Some say, in belief, one becomes “humble” and thus able to “receive” forgiveness.

I, of course, think one can be “humble” without “belief.”… However, I suppose this is irrelevant for Christians insomuch as humility is only attained by believing in the one God… a humility that allows one to get into heaven that is.

"For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

I’m not quite sure I get this… At first God says he sends his Son into the world NOT to judge… then he says he that doesn’t believe is already judged? How is this possible

It would seem that to be unrepentant of ANY sin before the moment of death, would lead to hell, would be the unforgivable sin… I dunno if the Church thinks homosexuality is officially a sin,… i’m sure there’s still alot of contention with that… i’ll have to look that up too.

It would seem also that submission to Christ as savior is not so much about “accepting” Christ as you’re savior, as much is it is about submitting to “rules”(not to sin)… because if you do not submit to these rules then you are going to hell… it seems like it has nothing really to do with the “love” of Christ or anything… or his compassion or forgiveness… it seems it has more to do with the new “power” Christ has to affect obedience to laws(a new power insofar as he becomes the new “way” into heaven…and insofar as denial of ANY law is a denial of his grace, his gift, his forgiveness etc etc)… There doesn’t seem to be a divination of the “WAY” of Christ… as a forgiving compassionate entity… which is what i was sort of trying to tease out by way of this idea of unconditional forgiveness… no, there only seems to be a divination of “moral Laws”…and the way in which “belief” in Christ re-energizes these laws.

 

[Alindawyl]

Just to be entirely clear…

What I understand now is that the “unforgivable sin” is not as simple as just refusing forgiveness.

In order not to commit the unforgivable sin, one must actually “believe” in God, because w/o this belief, you are “necessarily” unrepentant…

Even believing and God and denying original sin seems like it would land one in hell(does this mean Muslims and Jews go to hell?..by the logic expressed in this thread, it would seem so)… only through the medium of Christ can one get to heaven, right?

I am VERY interested how this idea of denying original sin and the belief that some Christians have that Jews get into heaven is possible.

The “unforgivable sin” IS as simple as not being penitent.

Take the following statements:

“I do not see how the doctrine of original sin can be true. However, I will try to learn more and hopefully understand how this could be possible”

“I do not see how the doctrine of original sin can be true. I will treat my own subjective opinion as objective truth and proclaim that the Church is teaching falsehood with this nonsense about original sin.”

Note the difference in attitude. The former attitude questions but is not certain. That person can be penitent. There is still openness. The latter attitude has made up its mind and is obstinate. There is no openness. That obstinance makes all the difference in the world.

To talk about the rest would involve delving into the concepts of baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, which would be best done in a new thread. Suffice it to say in this thread that God will judge perfectly and no one who is in heaven or hell when it’s all said and done will be in the wrong place.

Some say, in belief, one becomes “humble” and thus able to “receive” forgiveness.

I, of course, think one can be “humble” without “belief.”… However, I suppose this is irrelevant for Christians insomuch as humility is only attained by believing in the one God… a humility that allows one to get into heaven that is.

Not necessarily irrelevant. Humility without belief can lead one to belief at some point. The virtue of humility is a means to an end.

"For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

I’m not quite sure I get this… At first God says he sends his Son into the world NOT to judge… then he says he that doesn’t believe is already judged? How is this possible

The purpose of Jesus coming is not to judge but to save. However, the mere fact that he came provokes judgment. Look at the two verses immediately after those:

And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.

He who prefers darkness to light has judged himself, simply because the light has come.

It would seem that to be unrepentant of ANY sin before the moment of death, would lead to hell, would be the unforgivable sin… I dunno if the Church thinks homosexuality is officially a sin,… i’m sure there’s still alot of contention with that… i’ll have to look that up too.

Practicing homosexuality is a sin, the sin of fornication. Experiencing homosexual thoughts or urges is just temptation and is not intrinsically sinful. Thoughts/urges are not sinful unless they themselves become a sinful action by being welcomed and deliberately sought out.

It would seem also that submission to Christ as savior is not so much about “accepting” Christ as you’re savior, as much is it is about submitting to “rules”(not to sin)… because if you do not submit to these rules then you are going to hell… it seems like it has nothing really to do with the “love” of Christ or anything… or his compassion or forgiveness… it seems it has more to do with the new “power” Christ has to affect obedience to laws(a new power insofar as he becomes the new “way” into heaven…and insofar as denial of ANY law is a denial of his grace, his gift, his forgiveness etc etc)… There doesn’t seem to be a divination of the “WAY” of Christ… as a forgiving compassionate entity… which is what i was sort of trying to tease out by way of this idea of unconditional forgiveness… no, there only seems to be a divination of “moral Laws”…and the way in which “belief” in Christ re-energizes these laws.

Submitting to the rules is how we show that we love God. The rules are a means to an end, not the end itself. Rather than view Christianity as a series of little no’s (you can’t do this, you can’t do that), it’s one big yes. Yes, Jesus, I will love you.

The rules merely explain how we are to express that love. We aren’t condemned to hell for not following the rules. We’re condemned to hell for not loving God and, from that love, our fellow human beings as well.

 

[clmowry]

i guess what i was really asking… is it possible for a Christian to see an unbeliever being saved(in so far as one could take psalm 103:3 as having greater significance than the other passages I outlined). Even this becomes moot, insofar as we have already agreed on the fact that no one can know who will and will not go to hell… can one even be “sure” 100% certain that those actions outlined as “unforgivable”… the unrepentant heart… lead to hell? One can only be sure that these actions “most likely” lead to hell.

Ask enough ‘Christians’ and you can probably find any answer you like to any question.

You might want to look for answers to question from a specific belief system: i.e. Catholic in this case.

Your best source for answers in this area will be the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and if you are really interested all of the auxiliary documents referenced therein.)

However, as a starting point for this conversation, I think you need to be clear on what you mean by “saved” and “unbeliever.”

From a Catholic perspective, we might define “saved” as follows:

“Saved” = Salvation: The forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone.

Now you seem to be defining “saved” as: “Does not go to hell.” (Which, I think, from a Catholic perspective, might equate to the same thing?)

You seem to be defining “Unbeliever” as: someone that refuses to accept the existence of God and/or the ability of man to sin.

From a Catholic perspective, I think we would have to say that for God all things are possible, and it is possible (though perhaps not likely) that the “unbeliever” will be “saved,” but if he has been “saved” (through the grace of God) then he is no longer an “unbeliever.”

There, clear as mud…

Chuck

 

[Shin]

In eternity: You live a life of compassion and giving without regard for individual interest, and are remembered as such(and thus God is remembered as such…for your understanding of charity, compassion etc follows from an understanding of this unconditional forgiveness, of God).

Well, that’s not quite what I was hoping you would think through. I was hoping you would think through the practical consequences of it in Eternity, of how unrepentant sinners would exist eternally, and on this earth, in regards to parents and children’s discipline, the justice system, etc.

All this ‘unconditional forgiveness’ has real consequences, it’s not just an interior state, so if you’re going to run with it you need to consider them and what the real results are.

I would also like to add, that, given the reality of the way the world is today, it does not seem reality itself reflects unconditional forgiveness in the way it works.

What unconditional acceptance is ultimately, is acceptance of every error, everything wrong, and placing it on par with everything that is true and good.

That’s just chaos, and not truly good at all.

 

[jon4545]

Wow, these are some quality replies… much appreciation…

“What unconditional acceptance is ultimately, is acceptance of every error, everything wrong, and placing it on par with everything that is true and good.”

This is not quite what I meant… By “acceptance” I mean “affirmation” in a way… everything being an “expression” of God, or the unknowable or whatever it is that helps you to form your conceptual world. In this way, everything has “purpose” even the bad things, everything is accepted, “as it is”… everything is redeemed…

However, like I have said before, I can never be “absolutely” certain of anything, so the idea that hell might exist and not everyone is redeemed becomes an unsettling possibility

I am not saying that everything should be “valued” equally, that there is no difference between good and bad…some things should have greater value or emphasis…and these are the values that help lead one to such an ascetic state of unconditional acceptance…i guess these could be the “good” values… although good and bad are graduations, degrees of the same thing, and not intrinsically opposite, like “good” and “evil”…

Much of what I think I’ve drawn from extensive reading of Nietzsche… but it still hasn’t left me completely satisfied… everything is subject to interpretation… even the Bible even though it professes to have it’s authority from an outside source(God)…

How does one get beyond what appears to be an bottomless abyss of unquenchable curiosity and doubt?

What I truly do not understand is how people are able to “interpret” away the very need to question and “interpret” …and “believe” or have “faith”

It seems very dishonest to just “give in” and make a leap of faith. It seems very dishonest to *not *have doubt… maybe the most honest thing(and divine) is persisting in doubt and overcoming(through leaps of faith?)again and again until the very moment of death…maybe faith is “proved” in doubt? But why would I make such a leap? Why would anyone? It seems dishonest to make a leap out of fear… and it seems dishonest to submit to laws because that would first mean the leap of faith(in God)… I can understand making a leap over the unknown… embracing THAT… and accepting a force that is beyond comprehension… but WHY must this force be a God, why must it be “singular” …hell, it could MANY Gods… why even “label” it to begin with… Maybe Nietzsche did have it right when he equated everything to the Will to Power and explained it as a “pathos”… “neither a becoming or a being(god?)” The idea of importance is not that 'everything is Will to Power" …cause who knows… but that everything is a “pathos”

The most important thing in doubt does not seem to be embracing God and faith in God… but embracing and accepting the unknown. It seems a lot of people like to stick to “God” because they think humanity is unable to remain “moral” without these absolute moral Laws.

It’s “faith” in God’s Laws that I can never quite latch myself onto… Nietzsche is much more liberating insofar as he calls his readers to develop there own way… not even to follow him… but form your own autonomous will and morality… no more “thou shalt” but “i will”… you become your own moral legislator… the thing is… although many people here might consider him to be antithetical to Christianity, I feel the “way” of Christ is intrinsic to any sort of Nietzschean perspective…Of course, Nietzsche sees Christ as being “beyond” traditional morality and moral laws, and more of a way of living… His formula for his “Overman” is the Roman Caesar with the “soul of Christ”…anyways, that’s all besides the point…

“You seem to be defining “Unbeliever” as: someone that refuses to accept the existence of God and/or the ability of man to sin.”

Well, by “unbeliever” i do not mean someone that is Certain that God does not exist(because such a position is dishonest)… I mean a person that cannot help but doubt(it is in his nature)… Neither believing or disbelieving… but accepting the unknown as beyond his power.

“From a Catholic perspective, I think we would have to say that for God all things are possible, and it is possible (though perhaps not likely) that the “unbeliever” will be “saved,” but if he has been “saved” (through the grace of God) then he is no longer an “unbeliever”

I would be interested to know if there are actual Catholic texts that relate to this idea… taking into account “unbeliever” is not some that “absolutely” denies God… but on that same token cannot “absolutely” believe in him.

“”
“I do not see how the doctrine of original sin can be true. However, I will try to learn more and hopefully understand how this could be possible”

“I do not see how the doctrine of original sin can be true. I will treat my own subjective opinion as objective truth and proclaim that the Church is teaching falsehood with this nonsense about original sin.”

Note the difference in attitude. The former attitude questions but is not certain. That person can be penitent. There is still openness. The latter attitude has made up its mind and is obstinate. There is no openness. That obstinance makes all the difference in the world.""

Is not treating the doctrine of original sin as “objective truth” just as obstinate and narrow minded?

 

[jon4545]

“The rules merely explain how we are to express that love. We aren’t condemned to hell for not following the rules. We’re condemned to hell for not loving God and, from that love, our fellow human beings as well.”

I was under the impression one is condemned to hell if he is unrepentant. Being unrepentant would be denying moral laws and doctrine, right? But…

If one does not “absolutely” deny a law or doctrine… can one be actually be “unrepentant” and go to hell?

Is doubt itself a sin?