R
- Status
D
D_M
Guest
Maybe its beyond us… nevertheless I’ll still give it a go:
Here’s what I think.
He could have chosen not to create the world and therefore nothing could have gone wrong, although this is not preferable to having created it and let it go wrong. Would you prefer to exist as a sinner or would you prefer not to exist?
He created the universe and all that is in it as an act of love. It is because he loved those who He knew would reject Him that He had to make them exist. This rejection, nor anything, is capable of hindering His love and His plan for creation therein. His love precedes their rejection thereof, and cannot be in any way stopped by their rejection.
The fact that He loved those who He knew would reject Him is so important and absolutely certain, that nothing could have stopped Him from creating them even though they should enjoy a fate worse than not existing at all due to their unrepented sins.
God did not create anything in order so that He may love them, it is rather because He loved them that He needed to create them and make them exist.
R
Rudolf
Guest
Hi DM ! Thank you for your reply. What you wrote agrees with something that is in the back of my mind. I’ll print your reply for further reflection; it is one of the best observances I have read so far. Thank you again !
Best regards, Rudolf
Best regards, Rudolf
A
anthony022071
Guest
newadvent.org/fathers/30113.htm
Jerome,“Against the Pelagians”:
< Ask Him why He chose Judas, a traitor? Why He entrusted to him the bag when He knew that he was a thief? Shall I tell you the reason? God judges the present, not the future. He does not make use of His foreknowledge to condemn a man though He knows that he will hereafter displease Him; but such is His goodness and unspeakable mercy that He chooses a man who, He perceives, will meanwhile be good, and who, He knows, will turn out badly, thus giving him the opportunity of being converted and of repenting. This is the Apostle’s meaning when he says, Romans 2:4-5 “Do you not know that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? but after your hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will render to every man according to his works.” For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice. >
D
D_M
Guest
I’m very touched… your most welcome!
T
TelemachusSnzd
Guest
Yeah, this is about where I’m at with this question as well. I would add that God, being merciful, wouldn’t let us wallow in our ignorance without a chance to realign our Wills towards Him. Thus, we see prophets, wise leaders, and, decisively, Himself in the form of the Christ Jesus.
One thing that does confuse me about all this however is whether or not our knowledge of Good and Evil is a good thing or a bad thing. I think it might simply be a matter of sloppy wording on the part of various commentators over time, but let me clarify so that you all can understand the question I’m posing.
Supposedly*, our Fall took place upon obtaining of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Yet, it is that same knowledge today that will allow us to return to God by choice. Therefore, is it safe to say that what had cut us off in the past is now a tool for our reunification with God, i.e. Right Reason? This for me would be consistent with the Church’s assertion that God would not allow the presense of Evil without the promise of Ultimate Good coming from it.
*I say “supposedly,” because in my reading of the Cathecism it appears that the Fall of Man was in essence a sin of Pride, which is essentially believing we know better than God. It’s very “read between the lines”-ish, but the most plausible interpretation IMHO. This is echoed over and over in the Bible, e.g. Tower of Babel.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
It seems to me that pride does not come in until after the fall and is a defense against the underlying shame of the knowledge of not being good enough. The fall seems to be the result of innocence and the desire to know God and oneself in relationship to God and His creation.
T
TelemachusSnzd
Guest
If that’s so however, how could our fall have been… The Fall? If we were innocent, how could be we blamed? Something more than “wanting to know God” seemed to be at play, no?
A
allhers
Guest
Of course He knew and He had a plan. (read Genesis)
Knowing something doesn’t mean you cause it. You may allow it, but that is so something good will come of it. Something good did come of it. Jesus loves you!! He redeemed us all, if you want to find your way back to God after you fall, follow the instructions he left with His Church.
R
Ronald_E
Guest
We are blamed by fallen man who interprets through the remnants of original sin. The first two human beings as it is written in scripture have no identity as yet. They have no name as yet which in essence means they have no self knowledge. Being made in the image of God they will have a desire to explore their environment and discover who they are in relationship to self and their environment and God. They have no concept of death or evil. This is only discovered after they eat the fruit. The effect for the woman doesn’t take place until the man eats. The man then reacts with a sense of shame which seems to be the overwhemlming shock of evil and desires to hide because he doesn’t know what else to do. The natural consequence of knowledge of evil is fear and the desire to hide from it. I have to go to work now. Their is so much in Genesis 3. If we do not interpret it through the heart of Jesus then we seem to tend to judge harshly without compassion when Jesus stated from the Cross to forgive them for they know not what they do. God Bless You.
D
D_M
Guest
The gospel holds some verses of especial note that I should bring up with regard to the question of the knowledge of good and evil.
i) The Father judges no man, but has left all judgment to His Son.
ii) Stop judging and you will not be judged.
iii) [Jesus speaking]You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one, but if I do judge my judgment is true…
God has a will which is all good, and that which is not His will is not good, but He also does not judge those who do not perform His will, although if He were it would always be true (He knows His own will).
When I read these I come away with the impression that the judgement or discernment between doing good and doing evil (sin) is not something that God or His Son do, in fact it clearly states this. Which… I suppose I don’t really know though… leads me to the conclusion that this knowledge of good and evil that we possess by which we pass judgment on ourselves and each other is something that relates to this ephemeral world; at least God does not do such, although He could very well choose to and it is a perfect judgment…
The only point that I know that sticks a whole through this argument is that in the Genesis God says something like man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Now if God knew good and evil, but He never judges those those who do either… perhaps it is not simply that we knew good and evil that created the fall, but rather that we knew good and evil and that furthermore we found God to be evil. I say this because in the narrative, Adam and Eve believe Satan’s lies that God is keeping something from them and that He is intentionally deceiving them.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this is the law and the prophets.
The rod with which you measure you shall be measured.
Now if we find God to be evil, then he shall take this judgment and apply it to us. I’m repeating myself, but I’ll say it again, if we find something wrong with God such that we reject His commandments, then He does do us what we do to Him, and then he finds something wrong with us and calls us sinners. Nevertheless, he hasn’t passed judgment, we’ve only been judged by that which we ourselves issued.
Now if Adam and Eve ate from the tree and did not find anything wrong with God (not calling him a liar, and believing he would honestly understand and accept what they did, despite what he said earlier), or that is to say they did it good conscience (albeit making a mistake, but a mistake is different from a sin) than they would not have fallen… I like thinking about the story of the man whom Jesus cured of (I forget, was it leprosy?) something and then he strictly forbade him not to let this known to anyone that He was the messiah, and then the man went out and told everyone that Jesus was the Christ, such that Jesus had to depart from that place. Now… do you think that this man, albeit violating the Lord’s specific commandment, will be judged as sinful because He wanted to spread the good news? To violate God’s commands but perhaps doing it in good conscience toward Him… food for thought.
I have a thought to share: When speaking of Jewish dietary restrictions in the early church, St. Paul wrote ‘I am convinced by the Lord Jesus Christ, that there is nothing unclean in itself, but to him who finds it unclean, to him it is unclean’
Could this apply to all morality? If we didn’t find adulteries, murders, rapes, genocides, etc. to be wrong, and we did not judge those who should do such things to us, I suspect that we ourselves would not be held guilty for doing the same. Maybe, I’m way off the mark here… I tend to put especial importance in that phrase 'this is the law and the prophets. Jesus tells us that all morality is to do to others as we would have them do to us, if we did not pass judgments we could not be called sinners; from that I think that for us to know good and evil is part and parcel of our fallen state.
It is true that to know we are sinners is the essential confession for our redemption, but I’m still thinking that once we have been redeemed once and for all perhaps this knowledge will be done away with it… among the last things to go with death being the final enemy.
I admit it, I don’t really know, but then again does anyone?
i) The Father judges no man, but has left all judgment to His Son.
ii) Stop judging and you will not be judged.
iii) [Jesus speaking]You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one, but if I do judge my judgment is true…
God has a will which is all good, and that which is not His will is not good, but He also does not judge those who do not perform His will, although if He were it would always be true (He knows His own will).
When I read these I come away with the impression that the judgement or discernment between doing good and doing evil (sin) is not something that God or His Son do, in fact it clearly states this. Which… I suppose I don’t really know though… leads me to the conclusion that this knowledge of good and evil that we possess by which we pass judgment on ourselves and each other is something that relates to this ephemeral world; at least God does not do such, although He could very well choose to and it is a perfect judgment…
The only point that I know that sticks a whole through this argument is that in the Genesis God says something like man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Now if God knew good and evil, but He never judges those those who do either… perhaps it is not simply that we knew good and evil that created the fall, but rather that we knew good and evil and that furthermore we found God to be evil. I say this because in the narrative, Adam and Eve believe Satan’s lies that God is keeping something from them and that He is intentionally deceiving them.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this is the law and the prophets.
The rod with which you measure you shall be measured.
Now if we find God to be evil, then he shall take this judgment and apply it to us. I’m repeating myself, but I’ll say it again, if we find something wrong with God such that we reject His commandments, then He does do us what we do to Him, and then he finds something wrong with us and calls us sinners. Nevertheless, he hasn’t passed judgment, we’ve only been judged by that which we ourselves issued.
Now if Adam and Eve ate from the tree and did not find anything wrong with God (not calling him a liar, and believing he would honestly understand and accept what they did, despite what he said earlier), or that is to say they did it good conscience (albeit making a mistake, but a mistake is different from a sin) than they would not have fallen… I like thinking about the story of the man whom Jesus cured of (I forget, was it leprosy?) something and then he strictly forbade him not to let this known to anyone that He was the messiah, and then the man went out and told everyone that Jesus was the Christ, such that Jesus had to depart from that place. Now… do you think that this man, albeit violating the Lord’s specific commandment, will be judged as sinful because He wanted to spread the good news? To violate God’s commands but perhaps doing it in good conscience toward Him… food for thought.
I have a thought to share: When speaking of Jewish dietary restrictions in the early church, St. Paul wrote ‘I am convinced by the Lord Jesus Christ, that there is nothing unclean in itself, but to him who finds it unclean, to him it is unclean’
Could this apply to all morality? If we didn’t find adulteries, murders, rapes, genocides, etc. to be wrong, and we did not judge those who should do such things to us, I suspect that we ourselves would not be held guilty for doing the same. Maybe, I’m way off the mark here… I tend to put especial importance in that phrase 'this is the law and the prophets. Jesus tells us that all morality is to do to others as we would have them do to us, if we did not pass judgments we could not be called sinners; from that I think that for us to know good and evil is part and parcel of our fallen state.
It is true that to know we are sinners is the essential confession for our redemption, but I’m still thinking that once we have been redeemed once and for all perhaps this knowledge will be done away with it… among the last things to go with death being the final enemy.
I admit it, I don’t really know, but then again does anyone?
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Being aware of good and evil would make us more dependent on God for guidance which then develops into wisdom. Becoming aware of evil is a traumatic shock to the innocent and naive human being and that shock upsets the safe balance that the unaware innocent being lived with. What creates our strongest memories from childhood is the pain of the loss of love that had been a way of life until pain created an overwhelming sense of destruction to the internal peace that had been there. Just look at the birth of the baby being removed from the womb and the shock of that innocent reality. I’ll have to write more later.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Well, there are some interesting thought here. But we have a layered sort of law that had the 10 commandments as a common base of legalistic law. Over arching that is the great law of Charity: Loving God and Loving Neighbor. Then we have kind of a rule based law for reading the laws that God writes in our hearts by “doing onto others as you would have them do onto you”.
I really wish somone would put together a nice graphic depicting the taxonomy of law since its not well structured in my mind and I tend to fall back on the charity based law and the “do onto others” rule. The problem with the golden rule is that is requires a judgement of self to know what we would them to do onto self.
But I don’t think that moral relativism is implied here as a function of our intellect or sense of self worth. I certainly know that Jesus did not want to give us men a way to abuse this teaching and think we should invite the pretty women to all kiss us by walking up and kissing each one on the cheek expecting them to turn the favor.
It would be fun to think a bit on the implications of judging God not evil but TOO GOOD. And this plays right into what I understand happens after death - we are judged but I am not so sure its God who judges in an active sense. I think it could be that when the shroud of corporeal existence is lifted we try to approach God like a moth to a light and judge God to be unimaginably Holy and Magnificent and feel naked and our souls plays simultaneously plays back all its sins to judge itself. I think that the soul itself either sees itself unworthy and then condemns itself to either jump into Hell or into purgatory and in rare cases sees itself pure and innocent and advances in confidence to see God face to face without trembling.
I think Heaven is without gates and keys in the literal sense. The only thing that keeps the riff-raff and impure out of heaven is the burning love, magnificence and holiness of God Himself since nothing impure can bear to approach Him unless it is pure.
James
R
Ronald_E
Guest
Eve and Adam did not appear to initially plunge into a fallen state. Rather, it seems to be a state of fear and confusion which is the result of the loss of a state of stability and secrutity. From that traumatic realization of opposing forces of good and evil the human being then has to begin to build an identity based on the shock of their peace being taken away and pain entering their lives. That is when sin seems to begin to develop around avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. Competition for what is thought to give pleasure is then begins the process for sin to develop. Pain causes the individual to go inward for self protection and the bond that was there in peace now becomes a bond of fear and confusion and the desire to avoid pain. The first child born into this environment will carry the burden of that relationship and that child will not start her or his life with security with parents and witih oneself. If we do not have the security with our parents or with self then we will have a struggle to have security with God.
D
D_M
Guest
Would not a better analogy have been, if a man went up to kiss a pretty woman on the face, that in turn a man who found him pretty should do the same to him?But I don’t think that moral relativism is implied here as a function of our intellect or sense of self worth. I certainly know that Jesus did not want to give us men a way to abuse this teaching and think we should invite the pretty women to all kiss us by walking up and kissing each one on the cheek expecting them to turn the favor.
At least, that is to say, if we found nothing wrong with adultery we must also accept those other acts we would not otherwise accept which are under the same rule that stops a man from kissing whatever girl he likes?
My understanding of the law is that the golden rule precedes everything Moses said and it encompasses the commandment to love (if you love God’s Son, and therefore Him, you will also abide in His love, if you do not do so, you will not abide in that love).
R
Ronald_E
Guest
It seems that law came into being from God to create restrictions on behavior because men had no restrictions on their behavior except that the strongest would dominate. Law then creates limits in which people begin experience an order that is not created by the dominant. In that order which safety begins to develop through a sense of right and wrong then those who would not normally express the awareness of God’s values would now have the safety to do so. These people who are more open to God’s values do not have the innate aggression that those who dominate possess. Aggression is a mutation that develops when the environment becomes threatening with the awareness of evil and its influence on our fears. Law controls aggression and then those who are closer to the original creation of God can begin to express what they know about God’s Word. This then begins the development of wisdom that opens the human being to love that is inclusive and not possessive.
M
MaHeRsHaLaL
Guest
Perhaps God knew when he created us that we would fall. Hence the scripture in Rev. that refers to Christ as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world.
He could not create us as guilty creatures, then he would be responsible for our guilt. He created us perfect and sinless, then gave us commandments (don’t eat the fruit) knowing we would break them. To believe otherwise would place our guilt on God and make our punishment unjust.
God has a plan and Satan was unknowingly played into it in the garden. Adam and Eve had to fall, they could not be tested morally in a perfect garden, look at the curses God puts on Adam, Eve and the Earth due to the fall. These are the trials and tests we must overcome in this life. “Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world…”
I do not agree with the doctrine of original sin, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.
He could not create us as guilty creatures, then he would be responsible for our guilt. He created us perfect and sinless, then gave us commandments (don’t eat the fruit) knowing we would break them. To believe otherwise would place our guilt on God and make our punishment unjust.
God has a plan and Satan was unknowingly played into it in the garden. Adam and Eve had to fall, they could not be tested morally in a perfect garden, look at the curses God puts on Adam, Eve and the Earth due to the fall. These are the trials and tests we must overcome in this life. “Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world…”
I do not agree with the doctrine of original sin, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Perhaps that analogy could work to. Though, I am still not sure its optimized yet. You generalized it to cross-wire the signals to pick up the sin of homosexuality. But why stop there? We could then extend the vignette to have an observant donkey take that same original and fairly benign act as a solicitation to bestiality as well.
At any rate I think we successfully demonstrated the general absurdity of relative moralism. There is such a thing after-all of some absolutes of right and wrong.
Hell Yea or Heavens No?
James
D
D_M
Guest
My argument for the validity of that analogy would simply be that a man kissing a woman who is not his wife is little different from a man kissing another man in the sense that they are both sinful by the same commandment. If we did not know this commandment to be true, and did not know adultery to be wrong (thereby legitimizing the man kissing pretty woman) it would necessitate that… well we did not know adultery to be wrong and therefore homosexuality, bestiality, or whatever else one can name that was originally held back by this commandment we have now rejected would also not be wrong.Perhaps that analogy could work to. Though, I am still not sure its optimized yet. You generalized it to cross-wire the signals to pick up the sin of homosexuality. But why stop there? We could then extend the vignette to have an observant donkey take that same original and fairly benign act as a solicitation to bestiality as well.
At any rate I think we successfully demonstrated the general absurdity of relative moralism. There is such a thing after-all of some absolutes of right and wrong.
Hell Yea or Heavens No?
James
In terms of absolutes and relatives, I would state this: in order for morality to be absolute it is necessary that every person knows it to be wrong. I don’t think we’ve established that these things are wrong in the absolute sense, only that they are wrong to us two catholics who know such things to be wrong.
And I have met at least 1 or 2 persons in my lifetime who find nothing wrong with either homosexuality, bestiality or kissing the woman who is not your wife, although they are few indeed, few enough that generally speaking we could claim the existence of absolute right and wrong here;
if these things are not wrong to them and they don’t judge others for doing it, I can only conclude that to them it is not wrong, because their conscience does not appear to condemn them nor do they judge others by it; although for us and most of humanity it is different.
The only thing is that they still judge although not for these things, and therein lies their sinfulness, because they themselves fall guilty of the same judgments they issue.
Although I would agree, such people are few enough to speak of absolutes in morals especially with regard to fornication; but not in a literal sense.
So… my answer is still, the golden rule precedes the ten commandments, the gospel itself says this;
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this is the law and the prophets
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Personally, I am still working through this whole area trying to find a balance between moral law and the rule based law of “doing onto others” There does seem to be a fuzzy message and teaching in this area. Catholics seem to have both and we certainly have specific teachings through the CCC that while deriving from the golden rule are pretty much mandates (e.g. being obedient to authority, premarital sex, celibacy etc.).
The human challenge I see with a rule based law, a law “written on the heart”, is that the further & further one falls from sin (a consequence of original sin) the harder and harder it becomes for a person to hear their owned seared conscience. This pattern is seen in the general moral decay of humanity over history (again a consequence of original sin). So as one falls away I think it becomes progressively hard for a person to correct themselves and even see any semblance of “law” in their own mind or to be able to differentiate right from wrong. Sin deludes & corrupts the heart and until the person falls into tragedy or has a serious incident that wakes them up they rarely repent of their own accord. Thank God for sending Jesus to break our hearts of stone (the stone tablets of Mosaic Law) and explain to us the concept of a Love based Law that has provisions for Mercy and forgiveness.
But with God changing the Justice paradigm through the NT message from a written in stone law to a flexible law written in the pains and emotions of the human heart (compassion) we get a conflicts with human ideas about “fairness” and other spiritual artifacts that we must reconcile. But we also get the advantage of law that adapts to the human condition and societal norms that humanity ascends to or falls from – or do we?
The disturbing thing for me is the notion of relative merit and relative expectation arising from God’s justice. We have the clear teaching that ‘to much that is given much is expected’. And we also know that those who try to preserve what little they have (grace, faith) for themselves will lose it. God demands that His grace be shared progressively with our fellow man to benefit both Him & ourselves. We are rewarded with more grace to better serve God. This in turn opens us up to higher merit & heavenly reward (I think) but increases expectation! Woe is us who must climb this Jacob’s Ladder! We can never rest nor get off and the higher we climb the greater the potential and distance to fall. The yoke was supposed to be light. But it looks to me that we are yoked to an ever increasing uphill slope where the higher we go the easier it is to fall back to some lower level and have to start all over again.
There almost seems to be a logarithmic expectation. Some saints tell us that souls that were meek and had little earthly knowledge but had just a simple faith in God were given only short and less intense purgatory times for venial faults. But some very devout religious who knew God’s truth and embraced it but did not fully act on it to “bear much fruit” (slothful in their duty) are said to be given severe times in purgatory. Did the soul from which more was expected finally get a more glorious crown when she did make it to heaven over the one with simple faith?
This all resonates generally with the concept of ‘the first shall be last and the last shall be first’ and ‘the greatest among you should seek to be the least’. God’s justice appears to be quite harsh for those who know the truth and don’t meet expectations. Yet God’s mercy seems to be quite generous for those who know little of the truth but hold simple faith. Is one better off having a naive (child’s) faith in God? It seems to be a risk to be born into an environment where one is privileged to be exposed to great knowledge and teaching of the Truth (‘the rich man [spiritually, intellectually or materially rich?] being like the camel unable to pass through the eye of the needle’).
God tells us to share his grace; and that includes our insights on what is sinful and displeasing to Him. We know that God’s justice can hold us accountable for other men’s sins if we do not warn them against them. We can only assume that they are held to a similar standard as we are. So it’s not being a good neighbor to not try to prevent a person from committing spiritual suicide. It’s also not good for us to have to see sin all around us and risk many temptations ourselves.
Christians may have to walk through the valley of death on the way home but we don’t have to live in it.
James
- Status