J
JohnG139
Guest
thank you, point taken
John
- Status
John
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
John,
God “punished” you by giving you the natural gift of life. Yes, he does not automatically give you supernatural gifts and preternatural gifts, but if one complains to the gift-giver for not giving enough gifts or the right gifts, then I’d say the injustice is not with the gift-giver, but with the ungrateful recipient of God’s gifts. Can one blame the gift-giver for not giving more gifts? Is that a proper understanding of injustice?
Have you ever given a gift to someone and they didn’t appreciate it, or took it for granted? Did you ever give something to someone and they expected more?
I think you have to ask yourself, do you deserve any gift from God, especially eternal life in heaven? If so why? If not, then isn’t God perfectly just in simply giving you the natural gift of life, but not the gift of supernatural life?
If you were to hypothetically die without any actual sin, but with only the lack of orignial justice (aka original sin), then are you aware that according to Catholic theology, while you will not enjoy the Beatific Vision of God, you will not be tormented as the wicked will be in hell? Where’s the injustice in living more happily than you have at any point in your earthly existence, but still apart from the vision of God?
Original sin is not something you are born with, strictly speaking, but something you are born without. You are born without the gift of original justice. There is no injustice in being born with merely natural gifts. Simply put, you are given good natural gifts by God through human generation, but you lack supernatural gifts as a consequence of human generation. So what? That’s the gift-givers perogative, no? Is it just to demand more gifts which are completely undeserved to begin with?
Those who cooperate with God’s actual grace have the potential to be rewarded with more gifts, according to Catholic theology. Yet, He still owe’s you nothing as a matter of justice, strictly speaking, as his gifts are still gratuitous (undeserved), no matter what you do.
It’s like a waiter demanding a tip, and if they receive one, then demanding a bigger tip. It’s just that absurd. You don’t deserve a tip, as a tip is completely gratuitous. If you choose not to tip your waiter, is it a breach of justice? Of course not. Likewise, you certainly don’t deserved supernatural life. No creature does. Gifts are dependent solely upon the generosity of the gift-giver. We have a generous God, as he gives us the potential for supernatural life. But it is not owed to us, ever.
Those that shake an angry fist at God because the gifts they were given were not good enough, or not big enough are like the waiter demanding bigger “tips.” They lack a proper understanding of justice. They need to take things into perspective and think about what a “gift” means. It is underserved. It is never owed. As such, it is never an act of injustice to withold gifts.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Originally Posted by JohnG139
*
In fact I was never offered the chioce to sin or not to sin.
Not until you have the faculty of the intellect and will can you be guilty of actual sin. Once given this faculty (also a gift from God), then you have the freedom to choose good or evil. The lack of the gift of original justice does not mean you cannot choose to master sin, given the actual grace God gives to all men.
For example, Cain lacked original justice, yet God gave him actual grace when he prompted him to choose good and avoid evil, warining him that sin is crouching at his door, and that he needed to master it. That Cain did not heed God’s warning is not an injustice on God’s part, but was surely the fault of Cain alone. God did not ask Cain to do something he could not do, given the mere natural gifts that Cain had.
I think God’s warning to Cain applies to all of the sons and daughters of Adam…
Gen 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."
God gives every person he creates the natural gifts and the actual grace to do good, if they will it. If they do well, they will be accepted. But I think if we are all honest, there are times when we do not do well. The amazing thing about God is that even then, he is very merciful and forgiving.
He didn’t create sin, he created you natural and good. That you lacked the gift of original justice means because of the sin of our first parents, you are given some but not all the gifts they were given. You are born with the lack of something, not the addition of something. You didn’t deserve that something by any principle of commutative justice, so there’s no injustice with God not giving you greater gifts when he created you. And the lack of those gifts did not mean you could not choose to cooperate with God’s actual grace in choosing good and avoiding evil.
*
In fact I was never offered the chioce to sin or not to sin.
Not until you have the faculty of the intellect and will can you be guilty of actual sin. Once given this faculty (also a gift from God), then you have the freedom to choose good or evil. The lack of the gift of original justice does not mean you cannot choose to master sin, given the actual grace God gives to all men.
For example, Cain lacked original justice, yet God gave him actual grace when he prompted him to choose good and avoid evil, warining him that sin is crouching at his door, and that he needed to master it. That Cain did not heed God’s warning is not an injustice on God’s part, but was surely the fault of Cain alone. God did not ask Cain to do something he could not do, given the mere natural gifts that Cain had.
I think God’s warning to Cain applies to all of the sons and daughters of Adam…
Gen 4:7 "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."
God gives every person he creates the natural gifts and the actual grace to do good, if they will it. If they do well, they will be accepted. But I think if we are all honest, there are times when we do not do well. The amazing thing about God is that even then, he is very merciful and forgiving.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It is true as what it is - but it’s not the library (it is, formally, a library, & not a single book ) to tell us the value of pi, for example. No one would base a history of New York upon any of the fictions about NY one gets in scientifictional films such as “King Kong” - yet that is often how parts of the Bible are treated: people expect from it what it does not profess to give, so they mistake one sort of writing in it for another, and get all excited when other people don’t make the same mistake. But a mistake is still a mistake - no matter who makes it.
FWIW, the Bible can perfectly well be inspired, without being free of error - though it appears to be Catholic teaching, that the Bible is both inspired, and inerrant. “Inspired & true”, may be a better way to put it: the difficulties with inerrancy are, to say the least, formidable. One of them is the lack of agreement on whether certain parts are meant as historical fact or not: much is saga or historiography, rather than history.For instance, if some believers in inerrancy say Cain is an historical character, those who say the Bible is inerrant yet believe that he is not, are saying that Bible is inerrant - but: inerrant about what ? If the Bible’s content does not have the same factual status for both groups, but is the subject of identical value judgements nonetheless, we have two different doctrines of inerrancy; because their content is different: in one, Cain is an historical character, in the other, he is not. So what is the inerrant truth being stated: the historicity of Cain - or the non-historicity of Cain ? Until this difficulty is resolved, the doctrine of inerrancy will be an empty doctrine, an assertion which different Christians fill up in different ways. And if Catholics fill up its content differently, they are to that extent not united in faith. For doctrines which have a variable content, are not one & the same doctrine, but outlines of doctrines, or different ones.
And that is only the beginning: it implies, for the OT, that first the consonantal skeleton of the words was written, and that centuries later, when the vowel points were added, the words were finished. Inerrancy in its current form, that of the texts “as originally given”, does not work for Hebrew, but only for languages with vowels as well as consonants. Ignoring the history of the writing of the Hebrew Bible is fine if one is not saying anything that requires consonants and vowel-points to have been written at the same time - when a doctrine depends on such ignorance for its validity, one is entitled to say so.
BTW, inerrancy is not true just because writers who knew next to nothing of the Biblical languages say the Bible is inerrant: how do they know it is ? Their judgement is worth nothing, unless it is based on knowing the accurate meaning of the texts to which they ascribe inerrancy. Quoting Greekless, Hebrewless Fathers like Augustine is no good: he was not qualified to comment on the matter - on theology, yes; but not the inerrancy of the Bible. ##
Yes - but plenty of people don’t think much of the orthodoxy of those who say so. 
A & E are slightly special, because of their importance for Original Sin - but belief in the creation of E from A’s rib was beginning to become debateable 70 years ago.
Yes 
- quite what this amounts to, I don’t know.
The definitive Revelation of God is Jesus Christ - the Bible is secondary to this (but still inerrant) - of course, there’s more to it than that
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953) has a long article on the decrees of the Commission; and makes it very clear that they were prudential judgements, subject to revision and to reversal, provided that the arguments against the positions adopted by the decrees were of sufficient weight - so they are not the last word on the subjects they dealt with; far from it.
End of problem - one hopes ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
All that implies - as you see already - is that revelation is progressive, not static and finished at any one stage. It culminates, and is perfect, only in Jesus Christ - before that it, it is incomplete (see Hebrews 1) and provisional, and so, subject to correction. So Jesus Himself corrects it. That’s why the ethics of Joshua are not a reliable guide for the treatment of non-combatants in war today: Christians are capable of something better, because they have received far more than the author of Joshua did. And by that greater generosity, we shall be judged.
This doesn’t mean that the OT has no doctrinal value - it means that what is said in the OT, about life after death, for instance, is not the final word on the matter, but may need to be corrected and amplified in the light of the Risen Christ: for He is the true context of the OT, the canon by which it is measured. That is why the OT does not continue after His coming, why it comes to a full stop: He is its goal, its purpose, its theme, in one way or another.The OT is God’s Word - but it is not the final Word: only Jesus is that. ##
Hardly - how can we go wrong if we do no more than He did, and use His words to do so ?
J
JohnG139
Guest
OK - I have never felt ‘punished’ by God nor anyone else. Perhaps I am just unaware of the alternatives. Life just is, and we suffer tribulations in our personal relationships in accord with how we treat others. My personal moral guidepost is the situation ethic. “In every stuation, do the most loving thing”. It is not the easiest moral guide to apply, but it has served me well, perhaps better than I have served it, but then we all can do naught, but try. I guess this is the equivalent of “love thy neighbor”. My life has been quite wondereful. I am 63 next month, I have two wonderful children, with whom we still share a very close relationship, I still love my wife of 43 years, what greater blessings could I wish for?
For 30 years, I have considered myself to be an atheist. For some personal reasons, I have recently felt the need for some greater strength than I could find within myself, and I began to explore Pantheism, then Taoism, then Buddhism, and now, Christianity, the faith I was brought up in, but rejected. I am still confronted with the same dilemmas of dogma I faced 30 years ago.
I have a great number of fundamental questions with regard to God, but this thread started with the question of how can I trust the accuracy and truth of the Bible. How can I come to believe in a God who says:
Exodus 205: “For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
Leviticus 20
Penalties for Breaking the Law
9"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
13If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Now surely I consider most of these acts wrong, or in the case of homosexuality I believe is not a matter of choice for the participants, rather it is just a fact of the way they are made, hormone levels, genetics - whatever - the most honest admissions I have ever witnessed attest to this -
My current belief is that the Bible is (in selected passages) a good spititual guide, however is framed within a vastly different culture, where punishment by death was acceptable (where is ‘Thou shalt not kill’?) Slavery and polagymy were quite acceptable, and thus it is dificult accept the Bible as ‘divinely inspired’ and inerent. The early church must have, of necessity incorporated in it’s philosophy and practice many of the then current beliefs, if it was to attract adherants.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Hi, JohnG.
Your question really is excellent.
Original Sin is not a punishment. It is a “state of alienation from God,” such that if the grace of salvation did not exist and were not impacting us even at this moment, then *every single moral decision each of us makes would be a bad decision, *with the consaequence that life on Earth would be a Hellish nightmare, a Bedlam of evil running amuck.
This Original Sin “state of alienation” proper to each of us – NOT just Adam and Eve – is only “Chapter One” of a two chapter “book” of the “creation story.” Chapter Two is Christ’s death and resurrection, which purchased the grace of salvation which we need to deal with our disgusting, sinful Original Sin tendencies.
So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o, the waters of salvation activated by the sacrificial blood of Christ * follow* mankind out of the side of the “New Terstament Adam,” John 19:34, after mankind is drawn out of the side of the “Old Tesatament Adam.” Genesis 2:21-22.
Get it? What God did looks unjust – until we see that God all along intended to add another ingredient to the cake mix – the grace purchased by His Own beloved Son’s blood.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
John
I understand where you are at in your contemplative journey. I too have gone through many differnt views with respect to God and His will for us. I’ve studied all the major world religions. None of them made any sense to me, excepting Christianity, which I returned to having left it behind like a prodigal son.
I recommend trying to see things from a different perspective. It seems Christianity is rather foreign to you because you are trying to view it through atheist/agnostic lenses.
Presume instead that God is the giver of life, then contemplate how nothing, therefore, is unjust for God, as we all belong to Him. I understand this is a premise you may not accept, but Chrisitianity is built upon this premise, and if you are to have any hope of understanding Christianity, then you need to attempt to see things with a different lens, if you want to understand another person’s Bible. You still may not agree or believe in that other person’s Bible, but you will better understand that with which you disagree.
Once you see Christianity from the perspective of this first premise, if the giver of life should decide to wipe out an entire tribe such as the Amalekites as punishment for their sinfulness and for the good of those that remain faithful, then that is his perogative. The Lord giveth, and the Lord can taketh away. The reason “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is commanded by God is because God is the Lord of life, not man. It is immoral to take upon ourselves the perogatives of God.
The first necessary premise that every Christian needs to accept before they can understand anything else, is that the Lord gives everything. There’s no injustice if the Lord decides to stop giving.
For example, if I decided to stop giving allowance to my teenagers, have I violated any principle of justice? They would likely think so, but their teenage ignorance of why I give this gift has nothing to do with whether or not my gift-giving is just, or the withdrawal of it unjust.
I don’t owe them allowance, but it is something I give as a gift to them, which they did nothing to earn. Just because I give them such a gift now, does not oblige me to continue to give such a gift in the future. Same is true with regard to life as the gift from the Giver of Life.
I understand where you are at in your contemplative journey. I too have gone through many differnt views with respect to God and His will for us. I’ve studied all the major world religions. None of them made any sense to me, excepting Christianity, which I returned to having left it behind like a prodigal son.
I don’t agree. Life never just is. It has a purpose, whether we realize it or not. It continues only by the grace of God.
I recommend trying to see things from a different perspective. It seems Christianity is rather foreign to you because you are trying to view it through atheist/agnostic lenses.
Presume instead that God is the giver of life, then contemplate how nothing, therefore, is unjust for God, as we all belong to Him. I understand this is a premise you may not accept, but Chrisitianity is built upon this premise, and if you are to have any hope of understanding Christianity, then you need to attempt to see things with a different lens, if you want to understand another person’s Bible. You still may not agree or believe in that other person’s Bible, but you will better understand that with which you disagree.
Once you see Christianity from the perspective of this first premise, if the giver of life should decide to wipe out an entire tribe such as the Amalekites as punishment for their sinfulness and for the good of those that remain faithful, then that is his perogative. The Lord giveth, and the Lord can taketh away. The reason “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is commanded by God is because God is the Lord of life, not man. It is immoral to take upon ourselves the perogatives of God.
The first necessary premise that every Christian needs to accept before they can understand anything else, is that the Lord gives everything. There’s no injustice if the Lord decides to stop giving.
Yes, but one’s opinion of what is just varies from person to person. Such opinions have very little to do with objective truth of the matter.
For example, if I decided to stop giving allowance to my teenagers, have I violated any principle of justice? They would likely think so, but their teenage ignorance of why I give this gift has nothing to do with whether or not my gift-giving is just, or the withdrawal of it unjust.
I don’t owe them allowance, but it is something I give as a gift to them, which they did nothing to earn. Just because I give them such a gift now, does not oblige me to continue to give such a gift in the future. Same is true with regard to life as the gift from the Giver of Life.
K
kepha1
Guest
John:
catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
That should dispel a lot of myths.
Peter
This arguement fails on several accounts.
catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
That should dispel a lot of myths.
Peter
T
trogiah
Guest
That is a very key statment. Something I think is at the heart of how we relate to God.
We must, each of us, decide if Life is good or bad. If it is acceptable or unacceptable.
Keeping the greatest commandment, to Love God with all our heart, mind, body and soul, means always saying that Life, (reality, creation, existence) is acceptable.
Any person of any faith must find a level of acceptance of Life, (God’s will) if they want to have sanity and peace of mind.
I think the Christian path to finding that accepance leads a person to the fullest possible life.
-JIm
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Biblereader,
You said:
"The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (sent. certa)" [ibid.]
"Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [ibid., 235]
"In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order (de fide) [ibid.]
"In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfill the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time (sent. certa) [ibid., 236]
You said:
I disagree that every moral decision results in evil without sanctifying grace. Catholic doctrine, on the contrary, asserts:
, pg 234]
"The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (sent. certa)" [ibid.]
"Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [ibid., 235]
"In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order (de fide) [ibid.]
"In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfill the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time (sent. certa) [ibid., 236]
C
challenger
Guest
Yes, 1909. It was an organ of the Magisterium during the pontificate of Pius X. He also wrote an encyclical on it, I believe.
- Status