Is eternal suffering pointless?

[tonyrey]

Your concept of guilt by association is false.

I stated quite clearly:

Your concept of guilt by association is false.

The fact that you have an ancestor who sinned doesn’t imply you are a sinner but it does imply you are associated with that person** through no fault of your own **and suffer accordingly because we are not isolated individuals. The bloodstained history of mankind proves that people are deeply affected by what their ancestors have done. The vortex of evil is a fact of life you ignore at your peril if you think you are born a saint.

We are the victims of our ancestors’ sins.

You believe we are the victims of our ancestors’ sins. Good Fella believes we are guilty of sin by association so who is correct – you or Good Fella? Whatever it is; it is absolutely absurd and incredibly unjust to saddle babies/infants (and anyone else) with a sin committed by someone who must have lived about 200,000 years ago. Can’t you see how unjust it is especially as Church doctrine professes that these babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity because they have original sin on their soul? Any normal sane person would feel absolute disgust at such a religiously inspired doctrine. The Church should come out and simply say: “Church doctrine professes that these babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity ”. Yes, there will be some flak over a statement like that but we have to be honest to ourselves and moral justice in general.

Church doctrine does not state that babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity.

1. Do you deny that one of our ancestors was the first to commit a serious crime and then realised it was wrong?

I do not deny that many of our ancestors likely committed crimes and realised they were wrong. There was likely some form of sense of what was right and wrong in our ancestors in relation to the morality of the time that was correct for them. Their sense of morality may not be correct for the morals of today but as humans evolved over time; morality evolved over time.

Thank you for agreeing original sin is a historical fact.

1. Were the cavemen aware of the difference between good and evil?

Please see my answer to question 1 especially in relation to the morality of the time that was correct for them.

Thank you for again agreeing original sin is a historical fact. If you do something you regard as evil you are committing a sin even though it may not otherwise be a sin.

 

[davidv]

Notice God did not say anything about grace. Curious he left that out. Notice also no mention of original sin.

So? Why did he need to mention either of these?

It would seem that being “ruled over” by satan while also being able to “rule over” sin are mutually exclusive.

I think you are equivocating on the meaning of ruled over.

Let’s say you were my slave, and I commanded you to clean my house. You are under my “dominion.” If you can say “no” and just walk out of my house, are you really under my dominion? If you were truly under my dominion, wouldn’t I be able to force you to clean my house? Or, maybe if the dominion were voluntary or contractual, wouldn’t you want to stay and clean my house? But, if you can decide not to clean my house, then how are we to understand my dominion over you?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You will have to tell me who exactly it is you are talking about.

Lets say it is a caveman, one of Noah’s descendants. But before Moses. Or someone before Noah maybe.

Before the law, before Moses, did you have to obey the law. And were you judged by the law.

Before Noah, what was the situation?

If we go just post Adam and Eve, were they living in a different domain. One of sweat and tears, suffering and labour?

Was "God a pathetic fool who enthrones the enemies of his own creation! ".

Unless you think there was no enemy outside the Garden of Eden.

All I can offer you is speculation about our most ancient ancestors. I do believe, however, that we can know from reason that the original sin theory just doesn’t add up. I’m happy to speculate:

We know from both the written and oral Torah that God gave specific commands to Noah, and set up a covenant with him and his descendants, forever. Jews understand “Noah’s descendants” to mean “all of humanity, Jews included.” The laws God gave to Noah are binding upon all of creation, all human beings, and all animals included. Read chapter 6 carefully and you will see that God judges the behavior of animals too (and yet no one maintains they have “free will” as it is commonly understood). Anyway, I would say the law since the flood is fairly clear and universal. All human beings are bound by it and capable of fulfilling it.

The situation from Adam and Eve to the flood is less clear. I could continue to speculate, but at least we know from reason that human beings must have had free will and some knowledge of righteousness in order to have deserved to be obliterated for their sinfulness at the flood. The Torah tells us that those humans were constantly obsessed with nothing but evil, all the time. This would be impossible if they had no knowledge of goodness. In fact, maybe it was by Adam and Eve’s very act of “eating from the tree” that they gained moral consciousness for humanity (but also lost their innocence). I’m not sure, but many Rabbis have contributed all kinds of theories.

None of them, however, theorized that all humans from Adam forward are born spiritually dead, incapable of good works, and deserving of everlasting punishment.

 

[You]

…

None of them, however, theorized that all humans from Adam forward are born spiritually dead, incapable of good works, and deserving of everlasting punishment.

I am not sure that is what original sin means. That sounds like the definition of mortal sin or something. Your own as opposed to Adam and Eves sin.
As I understand, I think the church believes the good thief for example, who probably was not baptised, entered paradise. By expressing a desire for the good he saw or experienced.

If the good thief was incapable of good works then he could not have desired good effectively as he did.

Original sin does not draw down everlasting punishment, I think, as there is a belief that Adam and Eve are in heaven. Besides, to be punished means you have had ‘to do’ something, all original sin accomplished was to open the gates to the possibility of sin in every human. Having someone else open the gates in your soul is not your own actual sin. But it leaves you undefended or inclined.

 

[Good_Fella]

I could be wrong but the magisterium, CCC and Catholic teaching state that unbaptised babies/infants go to hell to be punished on a different level to other sinners in hell.  The above Church doctrines also state they cannot possess the beatific vision.

The Magisterium has never given a definitive answer other than the necessity of baptism. This is clear by the fact that there is a funeral liturgy for the souls of unbaptised children. Until now the Church has only placed its hope in the Divine mercy.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

‘As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” [63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.’ [n, 1261]

Even if we are all descended from Adam and Eve, which science has proved could not have happened, do you think a loving just God would saddle all of us with the sin Adam and Eve committed hundreds of thousands of years ago?

We are no different than they were - as our arch-types - once we are conceived. By nature we are inclined to sin and do in fact sin, and so we “all fall short of the glory of God”. Aquinas teaches that perfection in this world amounts to someone or something achieving its purpose. Human perfection lies in us achieving our proper end, viz. our intellectual capacities of understanding God and directing our will towards God by conforming it to His will. As I see it, Adam and Eve were created perfect in this way, but they were not created absolutely perfect. It’s a dogma of the Catholic Church that only God is absolutely perfect: He is absolutely good and righteous. God is absolutely perfect because He is entirely actual with no potential. All beings and things are perfect in proportion to their actuality.

Adam and Eve were created perfect, but not absolutely; since they had the potential to freely fall short of achieving their purpose, which was to be good by following the will of God. We have inherited this potential to fall from grace and achieving that purpose for which God has created us, notwithstanding whether we die before being culpable for our personal sins. The truth is that mankind does sin given the opportunity and falls short of the Divine perfection. There is an equality of justice that exists between God and mankind (Adam) because of our offenses which result from our inbred selfishness. Before God, no human being is absolutely innocent. Christ died for us to restore the original equality of justice that Adam had forfeited when he fell from grace. He died to make up for our sinful nature. In his divinity, he merited the initial grace of justification and forgiveness for the human race, and in his humanity he absolves us of our personal sins with the divine authority invested in him to act as our eternal High Priest. We receive the application of his absolution when we confess our sins in a humble and contrite spirit.

We do not treat Germans today as being guilty by association for the war crimes committed by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

That’s because WWll ended about 70 years ago. At least 200,000 German citizens lost their lives over night when the Allies bombed Dresden as a consequence of the aggressive acts of Hitler and the Nazis.

Again, we see that mere human beings can be more just than an omnipotent being.

Were the Allies justified in bombing German cities and wiping out hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, including infants who were sucked out of their mothers’ arms and into the flames? The Allies felt this was all part of a just war.

The truth is Adam and Eve never existed so there is no original sin to worry about. Adam and Eve is a myth.

If they didn’t historically, they do symbolically. So the dogma of original sin still stands, though it may be interpreted in different terms by theologians who believe in theistic evolution.

I’m curious. How can you be Catholic and not believe in original sin which is a dogma of the Church?

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The fact that you have an ancestor who sinned doesn’t imply you are a sinner but it does imply you are associated with that person** through no fault of your own **and suffer accordingly because we are not isolated individuals. The bloodstained history of mankind proves that people are deeply affected by what their ancestors have done. The vortex of evil is a fact of life you ignore at your peril if you think you are born a saint. . .

We are all having to deal with the consequences of the original sin in our lives. Perhaps that is why some don’t see it, because it is everywhere.
Normal human existence could and can be in Christ, so so much more.

At any rate this principle of consequences to later generations is clearly demonstrated in cases of alcoholism. In such situations, through no fault of their own, the offspring are at risk of fetal alcohol syndrome, a propensity for alcoholism and other forms of mental illness, family disharmony and abuse, broken senses of self - the parents’ sins are felt through the generations.

 

[jmcrae]

None of them, however, theorized that all humans from Adam forward are born spiritually dead, incapable of good works, and deserving of everlasting punishment.

Neither does the Catholic Church. Perhaps you have mistaken us for Calvinists.

 

[fisherman_carl]

, no Catholic is free to believe that unbaptized babies go to heaven to be with their families."

Not true. Many Catholics do believe this. And if you read the article I posted you would know that it is perfectly acceptable to have hope for their salvation. If anything the Church is saying we don’t know what happens to people who do not have the Sacraments but we can still have hope that God can act outside of the Sacraments. Personally, I don’t really see what your issue is with this. You should be fully aware that the Church does not know everything and only makes dogmatic pronouncements on what it knows to be true. There is no dogmatic pronouncement on the fate of unbabtized children. So one is free to choose from different theories. You make it sound like there is no choice.

“14Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.”

Jesus is the Sacrament. All he has to do is touch them and their sins are forgiven and they are healed. This is a constant message of the NT.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Neither does the Catholic Church. Perhaps you have mistaken us for Calvinists.

Q. 256. What evil befell us on account of the disobedience of our first parents?

A. On account of the disobedience of our first parents, we all share in their sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had remained faithful.

Q. 257. Is it not unjust to punish us for the sin of our first parents?

A. It is not unjust to punish us for the sin of our first parents, because their punishment consisted in being deprived of a free gift of God; that is, of the gift of original justice to which they had no strict right and which they willfully forfeited by their act of disobedience.

Q. 258. But how did the loss of the gift of original justice leave our first parents and us in mortal sin?

A. The loss of the gift of original justice left our first parents and us in mortal sin because it deprived them of the Grace of God, and to be without this gift of Grace which they should have had was to be in mortal sin. As all their children are deprived of the same gift, they, too, come into the world in a state of mortal sin.

Q. 259. What other effects followed from the sin of our first parents?

A. Our nature was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, which darkened our understanding, weakened our will, and left in us a strong inclination to evil.

Q. 265. What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?

A. The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.

Q. 266. Why is this sin called original?

A. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.

Q. 267. Does this corruption of our nature remain in us after original sin is forgiven?

A. This corruption of our nature and other punishments remain in us after original sin is forgiven.

Q. 281. Why is this sin called mortal?

A. This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.

• Baltimore Catechism

If any man says that the grace of justification was given us in order that we might the more easily fulfill that which we are bound to do by the power of free will, so that we could, even without grace, only not so easily, fulfill the Divine commands, let him be anathema.

• Council of Carthage 418, Canon V

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

Council of Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.

Baltimore teaches us that we’re born in mortal sin, and that mortal sin leads to everlasting damnation. Carthage teaches us that we’re incapable of fulfilling God’s law without the “grace of justification” (ie baptism). Florence teaches us that those in original sin alone (ie unbaptized babies) go immediately to hell when they die.

Is this not the Catholic faith?

 

[Vico]

Again, I ask: are “those in heaven” merely a subset of “those who are saved?” Where is this place of salvation outside of heaven?

Since you asked, limbus patrum and purgatory lead to heaven, and *limubus parvulorum (**this limbus has no clear foundation in revelation, and not dogmatic) *is not strictly hell. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:

• hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
• the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
• the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
• purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.

Hontheim, J. (1910). Hell. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[jmcrae]

Baltimore teaches us that we’re born in mortal sin, and that mortal sin leads to everlasting damnation. Carthage teaches us that we’re incapable of fulfilling God’s law without the “grace of justification” (ie baptism). Florence teaches us that those in original sin alone (ie unbaptized babies) go immediately to hell when they die.

Is this not the Catholic faith?

All of the Catechisms teach us that we are born in Original Sin - that is to say, we are born without a relationship with Jesus Christ.

We become related to Jesus Christ (we are adopted into His family) in the Sacrament of Baptism.

It is by means of our relationship with Jesus Christ that we go to Heaven.

Now - could a person enter into a relationship with Jesus outside of the Sacraments, and without the use of reason? The Church answers, “We don’t know.” We know that John the Baptist leapt in the womb when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, came to visit his mother Elizabeth. The Church also recognizes the Holy Innocents who were slaughtered by King Herod when he was looking for Jesus to kill Him in His crib, and I’m quite certain that none of them were ever baptized.

None of the Old Testament Saints were ever baptized, either. So, clearly, God can impart grace, and can save souls without the need of the Sacrament of Baptism.

At the same time, we also don’t presume that God will do this for us or for our children, so we ensure that we and our children are baptized and that we receive the Sacraments of the Church on a regular basis, just in case it turns out that we aren’t quite as special as John the Baptist, or Elijah, or Moses, or David.

But the Catholic Church affirms that although the Sacraments are the ordinary means of salvation for most people, God can certainly make exceptions for those He deems worthy. We don’t dare speculate who those more worthy ones might - or might not - be.

 

[Good_Fella]

• Baltimore Catechism
• Council of Carthage 418, Canon V

Council of Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439.

Baltimore teaches us that we’re born in mortal sin, and that mortal sin leads to everlasting damnation. Carthage teaches us that we’re incapable of fulfilling God’s law without the “grace of justification” (ie baptism). Florence teaches us that those in original sin alone (ie unbaptized babies) go immediately to hell when they die.

Is this not the Catholic faith?

The Baltimore Catechism teaches that no unsanctified soul can enter heaven. Nor do natural good works uninformed by grace and charity justify. There is a difference between moral and salvific good works.

Baltimore Catechism (1891)

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Being deprived of the Beatific Vision can be classified as a form of punishment. This is a negative form of punishment opposed to the positive punishments in Hell for those who die with the stain of actual mortal sins on their souls. These souls refused to repent by their own fault and thus committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Unbaptised infants and children don’t have to repent for having committed any mortal sins in order to be pardoned, so they don’t have any positive punishments to endure in the afterlife because of unrepentant mortal sins. The only question that still remains is whether these souls can have a share in the Beatific Vision with the saints in Heaven.

Note the Catechism does not deny that these souls may be baptized by desire or blood. Nor is Limbo a dogma.

Carthage stresses the necessity of Baptism in its condemnation of Pelagius. The council does not deal with the question of the eternal fate of formally unbaptised souls.

The fathers of the Council of Florence made a statement pertaining to faith, not a statement of faith. They did not definitively declare that infants and children are ineligible for receiving the baptism of desire or of blood. What they did was ratify that no unbaptised soul can enter Heaven. This is a doctrine which belongs to the deposit of faith. The eternal destiny of infants and children who die without being formally baptised remains a matter of reflection and discernment pending a final decision. But what the Church (sensus fidelium) has never believed or taught (Magisterium) is that these souls are consigned to Hell to endure positive punishments along with the wicked, since they aren’t culpable for having committed any actual mortal sins. The Scriptures are clear on who goes to Gehenna. In the sacred liturgy there is a funeral Mass for the souls of formally unbaptized infants and children which reflects the hope the Church has in God’s mercy and justice for these poor souls.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

-Genesis 4: 6-7

If we are born under the dominion of satan, in original sin, and unable to perform any good works without the supernatural intervention of grace, why does God specifically tell Cain that he has the power to avoid sin (ie "rule over it)?

Cain would surely have been born in original sin right? Surely he would have been under the domain of satan, as the RCC alleges all human beings are from birth, right? So, why does God tell him that he can become “ruler” over sin?

'And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."’

If we are able to perform any good work without the aid of supernatural grace, why did God intervene to save Cain from spiritual death? Why was it that God did not accept Cain’s sacrificial offerings (good works)?. How was it that Cain harboured jealousy and anger towards his brother Abel and was vexed with God for having rejected his “good works” (sacrificial offerings) without the stain of original sin on his soul? How was it that Cain had the ability to master sin but eventually murdered his brother? The passage that you cited must be read in context with the entire story of Cain and Abel.

This biblical narrative actually supports the Catholic dogma of original sin and our dependence on God for the actual graces we need to perform supernatural deeds necessary for salvation. Efficacious (cooperative) grace is the actual grace to which human consent is freely given so that it produces the intended supernatural effect. Substantially this grace is the Divine persuasion and influence which is communicated to help us overcome our disordered passions and desires that lead to vice. Using Catholic terminology we can say that God offered Cain the actual graces of humility, repentance, and conversion that would allow him to transcend his natural inclinations and rid him of his disordered disposition – thereby sanctifying his soul. By the unmerited operation of God’s sufficient (operative) grace, Cain had the ability to humble himself, acknowledge his guilt and feel sincerely sorry for it, and convert from his sinful way. Unfortunately, however, he freely resisted God’s intervention and chose not to co-operate with Him by allowing himself to be persuaded by God.

Cain refused to accept the divine truth which God wanted him to understand so that his sacrificial offerings would be pleasing and acceptable; that is he had no reason to be jealous of his brother Abel and angry with him, and vexed with God for having rejected his offerings while accepting those of Abel. The real reason why God rejected his offerings was because Cain would not acknowledge his guilt before God for all his sins. Cain’s natural ability to reason without the light of faith could not have helped him and save his soul from spiritual death, for this faculty of ours does not essentially belong to the supernatural order of our being. God’s intervention and influence was absolutely required.

In any event, Cain’s innate dark passions, which he allowed free reign in his hardness of heart, took predominance over the Divine influence. The truth is, that because of his ego, he thought more about himself than he did about God and Abel. In his pride and inordinate self-love, all he could see was that he was being unjustly treated. He felt that his offering sacrifices to God should in and of themselves justify him and make God indebted to him despite the hatred and jealousy he felt for his brother while presenting his offerings… Cain failed to see how his own faithlessness rendered his sacrifices unworthy. So only by divine intervention could he understand why God had rejected his offerings. He couldn’t see for himself how necessary it was for him to acknowledge his guilt before God so as to make his offerings acceptable and pleasing to Him. God honored Cain’s free will when He mercifully aided him in his spiritual conflict with the power of darkness. And God permitted Cain’s blindness to the truth to overwhelm him. God abandoned Cain to himself as he chose not to cooperate with Him under His benign influence and left him under the dominion of the devil. Without God’s intervening grace there to assist him in his slavery to sin, Cain eventually succumbed to Satan’s temptation and murdered his brother Abel.

O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
For you have no delight in sacrifice;
if I were to give a burnt offering, you would not be pleased.
The sacrifice acceptable to God[d] is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.
Psalm 51, 15-17

“Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”
Matthew 5, 23-24

The need to humble ourselves, admit our guilt, and be reconciled with God and our neighbour isn’t something we can grasp by the natural light of reason uninformed by the light of faith. Nor can we by nature alone act humbly and put the interests of others above our own interests without the help of God’s grace. These are supernatural acts of salvific value.

"For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Matthew 15, 19-20

Guilt by association -----> actual guilt!

PAX
:heaven:

 

[arte]

I stated quite clearly: Your concept of guilt by association is false.

The fact that you have an ancestor who sinned doesn’t imply you are a sinner but it does imply you are associated with that person through no fault of your own and suffer accordingly because we are not isolated individuals. The bloodstained history of mankind proves that people are deeply affected by what their ancestors have done. The vortex of evil is a fact of life you ignore at your peril if you think you are born a saint.

You did state quiet clearly but your understanding of the concept of guilt by association is incorrect. I gave you clear examples of guilt by association that matched the definition but you have not accepted them. The vital part missing in your statement is: “not because of any evidence”. Where is the evidence to prove that we have actually sinned as babies/infants or prior to being born? The person(s) whose family members have committed terrorist acts will be questioned by the police but if there is **no evidence **against him or other family members, they will not be charged. If God allows the following: ”And suffer accordingly because we are not isolated individuals” then God obviously doesn’t understand the concept of guilt by association either. This would mean that mere humans have a better understanding of justice than God.

The bloodstained history of mankind is a fact of life. We fought as individuals and tribes from our very beginnings. Where does the “if you think you are born a saint” come into all this?

Church doctrine does not state that babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity.

There is a typo in my statement: It should read: The Church should come out and simply say: “Church doctrine professes that these babies/infants do not go to hell to be punished for eternity". To clarify it more it would be even better to also state: “These babies/infants go straight to heaven because their souls are unblemished”.

Your statement: “Church doctrine does not state that babies/infants go to hell to be punished for eternity.” Whilst I believe your statement is correct, we have been here several times in this debate and the result has never been definite. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that an unbaptised baby/infant who dies cannot go to Heaven. If they cannot go to Heaven where do they go? As Limbo has never been accepted doctrine, there is only one other place they can go to and that is hell. Everything else that the Church states on this subject is just “hope”. I believe that God will definitely send them straight to Heaven. I have also read the following but I cannot verify it: “The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that the babies which are not baptised whether they be the children of Catholics or pagans are born to everlasting torment and everlasting perdition” (page 146, The Crisis of Moral Authority, Don Cupitt). I have also read that there are different levels of punishment in hell and unbaptised babies/infants are the least punished but they must be punished because they have original sin on their souls.

Thank you for agreeing original sin is a historical fact.

Nice try! As soon as I typed my reply, I was waiting for you or someone else to come back and say something to the effect: If they understood what was right and wrong, they must have descended from Adam and Eve because before original sin, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of what was right and wrong as in Genesis 2.5: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”. **
You are using the same flawed logic** that some Christians use to counter the theory of the evolution. “It is in the Bible so it is a fact”. In your case, it is a historical fact. I have never read a secular history book that states: “Original sin is a historical fact and it happened about……years ago". Please also provide secular historical evidence to prove that Adam and Eve actually lived, were completely perfect and the approximate date of the original sin which made them and us imperfect. Every history scholar in the World is holding their breath waiting for your answer.

Thank you for again agreeing original sin is a historical fact. If you do something you regard as evil you are committing a sin even though it may not otherwise be a sin.

Once again you are using the same flawed logic.

 

[Michael19682]

Guilt by association == of the same species. Adam was a man, I am a man. His sin, recorded and well noted for thousands of years – what makes me born a man so unique as to not be susceptible to such a degree that I may not also be considered guilty. God’s judgement is higher than man’s. He says we are guilty because we are capable of guilty acts. God doesn’t need shadows of doubt or notions of probability to stop us.

Perhaps his judgment is higher because the stakes are also.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If we are able to perform any good work without the aid of supernatural grace, why did God intervene to save Cain from spiritual death? Why was it that God did not accept Cain’s sacrificial offerings (good works)?. How was it that Cain harboured jealousy and anger towards his brother Abel and was vexed with God for having rejected his “good works” (sacrificial offerings) without the stain of original sin on his soul? How was it that Cain had the ability to master sin but eventually murdered his brother? The passage that you cited must be read in context with the entire story of Cain and Abel.

If by “intervention” you mean he had a discussion with Cain, I would say it is because God spoke directly to our ancient ancestors in a way he no longer does. God did not accept Cain’s sacrifice because the sacrifice wasn’t good enough. Cain hated his brother because he was a sinner, like most of us. That doesn’t mean he necessarily was born spiritually dead, unable to do any good works, and doomed to endless hell. Cain had the ability to avoid sin, but he chose not to because he had free will. God allows sin, but punishes it. Cain was punished with exile.

There are many examples of “righteous” individuals in the Torah. None of them were baptized. How could they have been considered righteous? One of the great messages of the Torah is that moral uprightness is possible, and required. The despair of the gospel is that moral uprightness is impossible, but required! One must literally be saved by miraculous intervention to be a Christian.

If this narrative supports 1) babies born spiritually dead, 2) the impossibility of good works without supernatural intervention, and 3) everlasting punishment for everyone by default, then why did Moses totally forget to mention that? Why have precisely no rabbis posited such a theory, ever (unless you count Paul)? Don’t you think it is kind of an important idea? Why would God have left it out?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Since you asked, limbus patrum and purgatory lead to heaven, and *limubus parvulorum (**this limbus has no clear foundation in revelation, and not dogmatic) *is not strictly hell. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:

• hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
• the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
• the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
• purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.

Hontheim, J. (1910). Hell. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

Fair enough. I am willing to acknowledge that the afterlife must be more complicated than a simple heaven/hell binary, since we are more complicated than “good guys/bad guys.” The problem is that we have every reason to suppose, given Roman Catholicism, that the eschaton does resolve into a binary of heaven or hell.

Limbo is theorized to be the outermost region of hell, according to how I understand it. How can it be part of heaven, if God is invisible to those who are there?

 

[tonyrey]

Fair enough. I am willing to acknowledge that the afterlife must be more complicated than a simple heaven/hell binary, since we are more complicated than “good guys/bad guys.” The problem is that we have every reason to suppose, given Roman Catholicism, that the eschaton does resolve into a binary of heaven or hell…

Purgatory is obviously the most likely outcome for most of us…

 

[Vico]

Fair enough. I am willing to acknowledge that the afterlife must be more complicated than a simple heaven/hell binary, since we are more complicated than “good guys/bad guys.” The problem is that we have every reason to suppose, given Roman Catholicism, that the eschaton does resolve into a binary of heaven or hell.

Limbo is theorized to be the outermost region of hell, according to how I understand it. How can it be part of heaven, if God is invisible to those who are there?

It is not proposed to be part of heaven, but is it not strictly hell.
… the children’s limbo implies exemption, not only from the pain of sense, but from any positive spiritual anguish for the loss of the beatific vision; and not a few have been willing to admit a certain degree of natural happiness in limbo. What has been chiefly in dispute is whether this happiness is as perfect and complete as it would have been in the hypothetical state of pure nature, and this is what the majority of Catholic theologians have affirmed.

Toner, P. (1910). Limbo. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
The Church has stated that *limubus parvulorum *has no clear foundation in revelation and is not dogmatic, but has been taught for a long time by the Church, and so there must be room for opinion on the matter. This shows that a binary model is also not the only acceptable opinion. *Not everything is revealed.
*

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

God is Love as the Trinity.
He has created us with the capacity to enter into that transcendent Holy Union.
In order to do so we must become Love.
We must grow in Christ, returning to the Father, in filial obedience, the love whereby we come into existence.
Heaven may be understood as an act of love that through the grace of the Holy Spirit and Christ within us, brings us into communion with the Father.
This process takes a life-time however long or short it is.
If all the Saints in heaven are jubilant over each sinner who repents, I am sure they will pray for every aborted fetus who is deprived of its life, that they will know God.
When the universe that is and will be one’s relationship with the world is unfolding in the womb, if brought to a sudden end, who can say how one will respond within the wholeness that is one’s soul, never to have lived out its earthly potential.
Aborting a child does not guarantee their entry into heaven and most assuredly threatens one’s own.