B
BobCatholic
Guest
I’d love to hear that option.
- Status
B
BobCatholic
Guest
We suffer the same punishment.
If I were in the Garden of Eden I’d never touch that tree. In fact, I’d put police tape around it (crime scene do not cross).
I don’t know if God is being just here, so I can’t say either which way.
When God loves us so much (John 3:16) is he being just? No. But we benefit from that “injustice” so that is OK
God is being loving.When God is being merciful is he being just? No. This is pure free, gratuitious act. But we benefit from that “injustice” so that is OK
When God is giving a gift, is he being just? No. But we benefit from that "injustice"so that is OK
Justice is giving what is due to the other. I can’t earn heaven. I can’t earn any gift of God. I can’t do anything to earn God’s mercy. So all those three things are examples of where justice is not in the equation. Is God practice “injustice” - no. But neither is he practicing justice either in those examples.
So, am I calling God “unjust” - no. Because justice is not in the equation.
Is the child who is beaten to a pulp by an abusive parent “graced”?
Is the child who is beaten to a pulp by an abusive husband “graced”?
Is the child who is beaten to a pulp by a bully “graced”?
Not all suffering is grace.
Yes, but not here on earth. That’s only in heaven.In the liturgy, it is referred to as “oh necessary sin of Adam”, for we are now able to acquire through grace freedom from all punishment, and grace to endure the pains of this life with joy and peace, rather than victims with no hope.
God cares about the spiritual soooooooooooooo much that the temporal is not in his mind.
The “health and wealth” gospel is false. The only thing guaranteed in life on earth. is the cross.
But not the health, or wealth, or pleasant benefits. Only the cross is for now. Life is nothing but a series of Good Fridays.
And our imperfections.
And some people can’t get in.
That’s in the afterlife, not in this life.
In this life is only the cross.
No, he didn’t.
If he did, please tell me the GPS coordinates of the Garden of Eden and my family and I are leaving right away for it.
No, but they were clearly imperfect.
They were either:
- naive - and unaware of evil so when evil came, it could take advantage of them
- gullible - believing anything someone would tell them.
- stupid - “duh…I don’t know what evil is, so I can’t see it”
- prideful - “I’m going to do what I want to do, God can’t tell me what to do.”
Because they were imperfect, the choice was based on faulty reasoning on their part.
I’m always going to be temporally held responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve and others, this is not my choice.
I can walk down the street and get mugged and sent to the hospital because some evil man wants to hurt me. I’m not exempt from that.
I read the Catechism. It mentions nothing that my statement contradicts.
I keep saying we are being HELD temporally responsible for other’s sins, versus the Catechism which says we are not responsible. I’m not denying we are not responsible, I say that we are not responsible for the sins of others. However, what I see in experience, is that we are HELD temporally responsible.
Read my parking ticket analogy.
You get a letter from the city. Apparently you got a parking ticket. Reading closer, you see that the license plate number is transposed and the car make/model is incorrect so someone else clearly did the parking violation but you got the notice in the mail.
So you go to the hearing and argue your case. You show proof you didn’t do it.
The judge rules against you and fines you $100 for the parking ticket.
You’re not responsible for the parking violation, but you are being held responsible.
You didn’t do the deed, but you’re paying the price.
There is a difference between being responsible and being HELD responsible for someone else’s act.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Vico,
I think you meant, “Humans are inclined to do what they think is most desirable to the lower appetite, and when that ‘most desirable’ is contrary to reason, it is sin.”
After all, you cannot be saying that if a person says “It is most desirable that all children are protected” such is sin. And if a person says, “It is quite desirable that I go to sleep” it could not be called sin.
And then, the above statements are not contrary to reason.
On the other hand, a person may say, “I think I am going to put up a sign and protest the use of toothbrushes” which may seem contrary to reason, but is certainly not sin.
Let’s say we ask the above protester, “why do you want us to stop using tootbrushes?”. His reason is, “because the plastic is a waste of resource, and horsetail can be substituted.” Again, I would say that this is a bit contrary to reason, but he is still doing what he thinks is best.
In fact, we can observe that all people, to the degree they are self-aware and rational, can give reasons for their behaviors. The reasons may be totally warped by the passions and appetites, but his act, in a phenomenological sense, can be seen to be seeking “the best” or as fhansen says, “the greatest good”, or simply “a good”.
So, maybe with this modification the statement I made is clarified enough such that you can see it is not contrary to “man is inclined to sin”?:
“Humans are inclined to do what they think is good, even though that ‘good’ may be irrationally reasoned and subject to impoverishment by the lower appetites.”
Give that one some scrutiny, and perhaps it will pass the Vico-test.
Thanks!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Would you call the loss of a child’s inheritance from his parent’s gambling addiction “imputed guilt” as well?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, fhansen,
Once “responsibility” is so asserted, we have the freedom to look at the reality that people can be overwhelmed by desire, that they can truly “not know what they are doing”. It happens quite often, in my observation.
Nice to interact with you again, fhansen, thanks for your response!
Thank you, your substitution is more accurate. And in retrospect, the “greatest good” may also be an overstatement, it may be that the person is simply drawn to do a “good” without the added “greatest” or “best” modifiers.
Well, it may not be “generally” true, but in specific cases it may be true, with some explanation. In my thinking, we are responsible for everything we do, period. We choose our behaviors, no one chooses them for us. This definition only becomes a problem when consequences are chosen for a misbehavior, and then we are drawn to the “fairness” of consequences, but such fairness can be seen as a fully separate issue from the fact that we are all totally responsible, accountable, for our acts.
Once “responsibility” is so asserted, we have the freedom to look at the reality that people can be overwhelmed by desire, that they can truly “not know what they are doing”. It happens quite often, in my observation.
It would have been nice if you had responded to the “what is culpability?” thread I started. Is there an act by the human that is actually “foreign to his very nature”? Maybe these questions are going yet further away from the topic.
Nice to interact with you again, fhansen, thanks for your response!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Bob, this is excellent, IMO. (For what its worth.I don’t know if God is being just here, so I can’t say either which way.
When God loves us so much (John 3:16) is he being just? No. But we benefit from that “injustice” so that is OK
When God is being merciful is he being just? No. This is pure free, gratuitious act. But we benefit from that “injustice” so that is OK
When God is giving a gift, is he being just? No. But we benefit from that "injustice"so that is OK
Justice is giving what is due to the other. I can’t earn heaven. I can’t earn any gift of God. I can’t do anything to earn God’s mercy. So all those three things are examples of where justice is not in the equation. Is God practice “injustice” - no. But neither is he practicing justice either in those examples.
So, am I calling God “unjust” - no. Because justice is not in the equation.
)
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, beheading, gossip, white lies, are all foreign to human nature. We do them anyway due to pride and selfishness, sometimes duress or habit or ignorance are involved. As common as some sins are, they are out of step with reason and the greater good for humankind; love would militate against them. Is selfishness human? Yes, but only in the sense that lack of integrity is human-and harmful and even unnatural in any case when it transforms *desires into needs. *We’re here, in fact, to learn of it’s harmfulness, it’s negativity. Because pride and selfishness and self-righteousness are human only to the extent that humans are disassociated from love, and humans are disassociated from love to the extent that we’re disassociated from God. And that state, itself, is actually unnatural-and likewise unjust-for man. We’re here to learn of the “wrongfulness” of sin, and of the existence and overarching goodness and righteousness of God. Pat answer.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, an option is to not take the creation story literally. One can look at the purpose of the story of Adam and Eve as answering these questions, among many others:
Why do we suffer?
Why do we sin?
Where did we come from, how did all that is come to be?
Why do we have a conscience, unlike the other animals?
So, once we break away from the literal, we can give ourselves the freedom (within limits, of course) to speculate and reinterpret. We can address options that do not tie us to interpretations that appear to give a cruel or sinister image of God.
Those questions were answered by God in a way that was best for the time. The story was framed in such a way that humans are punished for disobedience. In the context of the tribal existence, obedience to authority was truly a matter of survival of the tribe, and God wanted the tribe to survive. We humans were not ready to hear the Good News; the world was too brutal.
If in the story of Adam and Eve the tree of knowledge is a metaphor for the creation of the conscience, it makes more sense to me.
No, we are not in an “Eden”, we suffer. We complain, and we might have a tendency to blame God, but the creation story turns it around and says that our demise is our fault, we should feel guilty for blaming the One who gave us the gift of life in the first place. Doesn’t all reconciliation involve my taking ownership of what I have contributed to any harm in relationship? Therefore, the creation story tells me that I am to take ownership of my suffering to some degree, I need to forgive “fate” itself, that there is some good that I am not aware of, but things will fall into place when I stop complaining and try to make a difference.
Now, do you see an omnibenevolent Father in this light?
Feel free to modify the option. (within limits, of course
)
B
BobCatholic
Guest
I believe the creation story is literal as far as the main points:
- God created everything.
- What God created is good.
- Adam and Eve were real people, and they were the first two humans on earth.
Perhaps the Garden of Eden is a metaphorical place, where if we do God’s will, he guarantees we will be happy. But I don’t see that happening in my experience. Every attempt I’ve made to get closer to God has failed so I can’t see it this way. So I am open to that interpretation, but my experience prevents me from saying it is true.
So are you saying that before the fall, Adam & Eve did not have a conscience?
If yes, then that’s another imperfection that they had. The software was buggy, no wonder it crashed! Oops, no error handling.
This assumes one did something wrong knowingly and on purpose.
Imagine you’re standing in line. Someone hits your leg with a stick. It hurts!
Angrily, you turn around to tell him off, and you realize he’s a blind guy with a stick.
Did he sin against you? No. He had the imperfection of blindness. But he did something that was “wrong” - he hit your leg with a stick, and it hurt. Is he culpable? No. But your leg still hurts.
We are created with various imperfections. Some develop imperfections over time because we have imperfections in the first place.
Does this mean we are 100% NOT culpable? No. But neither are we 100% culpable too.
What percent is the proper number? I don’t know. I know it is not 0% (because we are not impeccable) and I know it is not 100% either (because we are not supposed to be scrupulous).
I refuse to say I am culpable due to something I had no fault in (and moral theology agrees with this belief). I wasn’t born with the ability to lift 500 pounds, nor given the desire to lift weights, so I can’t lift 500 pounds.
So if I was required by God’s will to lift 500 pounds, and I can’t do that, is that my fault? Partially. But how much of that is God requiring the unreasonable (i.e. I must lift 500 pounds)? OK, God can do that easily. But I can’t.
“be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” - but I’m not created perfect nor do I have the ability to develop into a perfect person (which requires a supernatural process - a miracle).
I think that many of God’s requirements are unreasonable. Not unreasonable as irrational or stupid, but unreasonable as in super-reasonable or un-human-reasonable - based on God’s superior intellect and abilities (“My ways are above your ways”)
If he gives this super intellect and abilities to us, we can emulate him. But if God refuses to give them, game over. Failure is the result. If God gives us these graces and we “leak” failure is the result, game over.
I’m stuck between being proud (“I refuse to confess a sin I did not commit!”) versus scrupulosity (“I’m going to confess a sin I did not commit.”).
I hate being imperfect, and wish I understood perfectly. I pray for this understanding frequently and ask for wisdom on top of this. But God says no, so I’m stuck.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think that might be relative, OS. If this person is a parent, and this protest results in harm to their children’s dental health, it certainly seems to be “missing the mark”.
That is the sticking point, though, is it not? We have struggles being self-aware and rational. In fact, using your premise that people sin because they are ignorant and blind seems to confirm that people are often NOT self-aware or rational (fail to recognize the value in others).
Your formulation seems like an attempt to set aside the teaching of concupiscence. It is a formulation that replaces man’s inclination toward evil with the idea that man’s inclination to do good is stronger. This is a classic Humanistic position.
Certainly there are times when people sin and don’t know what they are doing. But classifying all sin in this category is a denial of the doctrine of mortal sin.
This depends, of course, on how one defines human nature. If one does not believe that God actually did “punish” humankind with the consequence of concupiscence, then humans are not really “inclined” to do evil. Disposing of that inconvenient view, one can then redefine it as man has a desire to do the good, and is capable of missing the mark.
It sounds like you are saying that, if God gives us consequences for sin, then God is cruel and sinister - contrary to love.
And that good news would be “no one ever willingly and knowingly rejects God”?
“God will not punish us for disobedience”?
“God would never do something to us that we would not do to our children”?
It seems like the Scriptures are going to need a lot of re-interpreting!
This certainly sounds like an interesting topic.
This is a very solid Humanistic approach.
I agree with you, things will fall into place when we stop complaining and focus on the good, entering into what we can contribute.
V
Vico
Guest
No, I thought of that but decided that since the topic is inclination by concupiscence, that it is accurate to exclude “to the lower appetite”. The inclination is to sin because of concupiscence.Hi Vico,
I think you meant, “Humans are inclined to do what they think is most desirable to the lower appetite, and when that ‘most desirable’ is contrary to reason, it is sin.”
After all, you cannot be saying that if a person says “It is most desirable that all children are protected” such is sin. And if a person says, “It is quite desirable that I go to sleep” it could not be called sin.
And then, the above statements are not contrary to reason.
On the other hand, a person may say, “I think I am going to put up a sign and protest the use of toothbrushes” which may seem contrary to reason, but is certainly not sin.
Let’s say we ask the above protester, “why do you want us to stop using tootbrushes?”. His reason is, “because the plastic is a waste of resource, and horsetail can be substituted.” Again, I would say that this is a bit contrary to reason, but he is still doing what he thinks is best.
In fact, we can observe that all people, to the degree they are self-aware and rational, can give reasons for their behaviors. The reasons may be totally warped by the passions and appetites, but his act, in a phenomenological sense, can be seen to be seeking “the best” or as fhansen says, “the greatest good”, or simply “a good”.
So, maybe with this modification the statement I made is clarified enough such that you can see it is not contrary to “man is inclined to sin”?:
“Humans are inclined to do what they think is good, even though that ‘good’ may be irrationally reasoned and subject to impoverishment by the lower appetites.”
Give that one some scrutiny, and perhaps it will pass the Vico-test.
Thanks!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Evening fhansen,
I agree that those acts are foreign to the inner self, the part of ourselves capable of great love. Those acts are foreign to our “true selves”. Perhaps foreign to our inner nature?
Are you following my babbling?
Thanks for responding.
I’m not sure we have discussed this before, but the way I see it, as our conscience develops, which is natural, it becomes less likely that we do the above (hopefully). It is natural for a toddler to take a toy away from another, for it is in his nature to want stuff, and he is not born with a conscience. However, the development of the conscience is also natural, so it is just as natural that the child learns that stealing is bad.
I agree that those acts are foreign to the inner self, the part of ourselves capable of great love. Those acts are foreign to our “true selves”. Perhaps foreign to our inner nature?
I like your “pat answer”, and I find it very practical. I contend (not to argue) that pride and selfishness are very natural parts of our God-given nature, and serve us, but that point only becomes important after the “learning” you describe. It is imperative to the Kingdom that we learn to love one another, and if it means temporarily feeling very negative towards our own pride and capacity for selfishness, then so be it. We can live and grow with a bit of inner divisiveness.We do them anyway due to pride and selfishness, sometimes duress or habit or ignorance are involved. As common as some sins are, they are out of step with reason and the greater good for humankind; love would militate against them. Is selfishness human? Yes, but only in the sense that lack of integrity is human-and harmful and even unnatural in any case when it transforms *desires into needs. *We’re here, in fact, to learn of it’s harmfulness, it’s negativity. Because pride and selfishness and self-righteousness are human only to the extent that humans are disassociated from love, and humans are disassociated from love to the extent that we’re disassociated from God. And that state, itself, is actually unnatural-and likewise unjust-for man. We’re here to learn of the “wrongfulness” of sin, and of the existence and overarching goodness and righteousness of God. Pat answer.
Are you following my babbling?
Thanks for responding.
G
guanophore
Guest
Such a formulation of the nature of conscience may reflect a Humanistic approach, but not a Catholic one.
MORAL CONSCIENCE
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
The Catholic Church teaches that God’s natural law is written in the conscience at birth.
I do agree with you, though, that conscience is formed/developed/grows with our formation. This is not contrary to what the CC teaches about conscience.
What you are calling the “inner nature” seems to correspond more closely with what the Church teaches is conscience.
I think you are saying that humans feel negative toward their own pride and capacity for selfishness because we have not learned how to forgive ourselves as God has already forgiven us. Thus, it is not really our conscience, informing us by the grace of God that we are in a state inconsistent with His intention for us, but only our self perceptions that trigger guilt and shame.
Yes, it seems to be an attempt to replace the Catholic teaching on conscience with a Humanistic defintion (one that centers on human perception).
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Bob!
Have you heard “expectations are condemnations waiting to happen”? There is a self-love involved, which is pertinent and is important to incorporate IMO.
Blessings.
I agree with the value of first two main points. Third point I don’t find extremely important, but definitely not worth making a big deal about one way or the other.
I feel closest to God when I am in contemplative prayer, or in nature, watching all the insects working among the flowers, or watching a baby playing with its toes, or watching the shoreline when there is a "wave warning” in effect. There must be something like this that immerses you in wonder, right?
That would be going for a more literal interpretation of the series of events. Adam and Eve came to see some acts as wrong, therefore embarrassing. We talk more about “conscience development” nowadays, but their explanation sufficed at the time. God gives everyone the hardware and software for a conscience when we are born, but the content is what develops.
If yes, then that’s another imperfection that they had. The software was buggy, no wonder it crashed! Oops, no error handling.
Well, I think it is not so much that the software is buggy, because all of our appetites serve a purpose. And no, I was not assuming that we do things wrong knowingly and willingly. What I am saying is that we are not predestined. Tons of bad stuff happens, and when it does it it very natural to get very grumpy about life. God calls us to transcend, but it also helps to reconcile with our lives, with our fate. It may help to take a little ownership of our fate, to find ourselves responsible without getting down on ourselves. We do dumb stuff, we can be too passive also. Taking ownership helps, I think, as long as we transcend the compulsion to feel guilty when we fall short of effecting our destiny. .
He is culpable in the sense that he is responsible. He is not blameworthy. Is anyone blameworthy, or is blame itself a label we put on others, something we overcome through understanding and forgiveness? It would have been nice to hear from you on the “what is culpability?” thread I posted.
Are you feeling a bit of despair?
I think that “perfect” has to do with “perfect in love and mercy”. We cannot be perfect in action, but we can certainly be perfect in intention. We can wake up and decide every day to love without limit. When we fail (guaranteed), we have still been perfect in commitment. When we commit to love with conditions, the commitment itself is compromised, imperfect. Does that sound like an easier yoke and burden?
Have you heard “expectations are condemnations waiting to happen”? There is a self-love involved, which is pertinent and is important to incorporate IMO.
Blessings.
G
guanophore
Guest
For some people, even those calling themselves Catholic, the teachings of the Church are really not that important.
This statement seems to indicate that there was not an objective right or wrong, or that they should have experienced guilt because they violated the commandment of God. Instead, the state of the human soul before God is centered in what the human being percieves, making human imagination and human reason the central standard by which to make a judgement.
The Church teaches
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
human conscience does develop, and can become corrupted, but from the begining it is teh instrument or organ through which God communicates with human.
This statement seems to be a reference to the position that Scripture is not really inspired/inerrant, but just a projection of human psychology upon the man’s interaction with God.
It reveals the reason why all scripture, especially the OT needs to be re-written/redefined/re-interpreted, since it represents not what God has revealed about Himself to humankind, but a warped perspective of God based on the limited understanding of the persons who wrote it.
Some people do struggle with compulsions toward guilt, but this statement (combined tih that above) seems to imply that the guilt expereinced by Adam and Eve, and the guilt people experienece today is not a relfection of the conscience (God speaking to the human heart in the secret depths of the soul) but rather, a psychological projectoin of an inadequate self percetption.
One can also absolve oneself of guilt by recognizing that no one willingly and knowingly rejects God, therefore any human action that is a mortal sin is not really such at all, but only a reflection of the human beings’ lack of ability to see the value of others, or of the chouce.
[/QUOTE]
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Humanae Generis. The Church teaches this so I’m agreeing with it.
Not really
Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden of Eden.
Imagine how a 6 year old boy and a 6 year old girl who are naked would relate to each other. They wouldn’t even think of the nakedness. They’d play and their innocence would be a plus for them.
Now imagine if they were 26 years old, with the same kind of innocence, with zero sexual tension. Then they eat the fruit and now they get all kinds of interesting thoughts get into their minds - oh, now they’re embarrassed and cover up with fig leaves.
This is how I see the embarrassment.
I didn’t know pride was an appetite, nor stupidity, nor naivete…I see them as imperfections, and I don’t know what the purpose of bugs in software serve, except to serve as a reason to hire QA staff to diagnose the bugs and developers to fix them. God is the Great Developer.
Someone is a cleptomaniac, things will find their way into their pockets. Someone is an alcoholic, mouthwash will somehow disappear. The only purpose of imperfections is to show how completely worthless we are, that we are nothing but unprofitable servants, and that we are useless specks of dust - and that we need God more than ever.
We have bugs in our software, God is our workaround. Without God, we are guaranteed to fail. “Without me, you are nothing” Christ said.
I agree, we are not predestined. But without God, resistance is futile, failure is the only way.
More like having difficulties with trusting God who won’t talk to me, but I don’t want to derail this thread by going down this rabbit hole.
And how is this defined? Love as “warm fuzzies” or unselfishness? I think the latter.
G
guanophore
Guest
I have to applaud you Bob, given your doubts and lack of fulfilling Spiritual experiences it is remarkable and commendable that you do this.
I think the vast majority of Catholics who don’t understand or disagree with what the Church teaches try to rationalize rejecting it, or convince themselves that their position is permissible, or both.
This is what makes your choice to be obedient even more remarkable.Not really
Although I think your description is a little over the top, I do agree with your point. God made humankind, and said it was good. Our imperfections do not remove the stamp of the image of God from us.
Been there! Done that! :whacky:
And how is this defined? Love as “warm fuzzies” or unselfishness? I think the latter.
Actually the term “perfect” (τέλειοι) in Matt. 5:48 is an adjective, derived from télos, “consummated goal”) – mature (consummated) from going through the necessary stages to reach the end-goal, i.e. developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process (spiritual journey).
Another way to say it might be “be completed” or “make sure you get to the finish line”. God has completed His plan of salvation for man in Christ, and we can complete our part of it by remaining in Him until the end.
You are a good example of this, Bob.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Bob,
Is there something “less innocent” about sexual tension? Well, we historically seem to think so, and it serves us to think a little bit negatively about our sexual thoughts so that we keep our behaviors in check. We, to some degree, resent the imposition of sexuality upon our “original” (as a child) innocence. This is all part of natural conscience development, dealing with all of this, guiding our behaviors, our obedience, our compliance to mores.
What about “pride” is an imperfection?
So, to me, “perfection” has to do with a commitment to love that draws no lines between enemies, friends, ingroups, outgroups, nor even the self. Sure, we can fall short or fail every day, but we learn and grow, right?
Thanks, Bob, it is nice interacting with you. I like the way that you word things and develop scenarios.
Yes, my thoughts too.
The way I look at it, the writers of the A&E story were trying to explain why humans have have a notion of right and wrong, while the animals (naturally naked) never suffer the same embarrassment. “knowledge of good and evil” has to do with the natural capacity for shame, which is triggered when we have done something wrong.
Is there something “less innocent” about sexual tension? Well, we historically seem to think so, and it serves us to think a little bit negatively about our sexual thoughts so that we keep our behaviors in check. We, to some degree, resent the imposition of sexuality upon our “original” (as a child) innocence. This is all part of natural conscience development, dealing with all of this, guiding our behaviors, our obedience, our compliance to mores.
Okay, well God does fix the stupidity and naivete by giving us knowledge and understanding.
What about “pride” is an imperfection?
Well, the picture I have of myself when I am in despair is that I am worthless, or my life is worthless, etc. This is an example of my emotional state effecting my cognitive state. Do you have children or people you love? Are they worthless?
Without God we are nothing, yes. Resistance against what?
“Selfishness” is one of those words that we use to self-discipline, it is part of the conscience, part of that list of “don’ts”, right? We are created very self-centered, and as our awareness and love expands to others, those others essentially become part of ourselves, we come to take more joy in the joy of others. This does not exclude taking care of ourselves, and being gentle and loving to ourselves, right? So “unselfishness” in itself may be a word that guides us to being less than caring toward our own lives.
So, to me, “perfection” has to do with a commitment to love that draws no lines between enemies, friends, ingroups, outgroups, nor even the self. Sure, we can fall short or fail every day, but we learn and grow, right?
Thanks, Bob, it is nice interacting with you. I like the way that you word things and develop scenarios.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Thanks! I really appreciate the encouragement.
I’m not perfect, by no means. I would not be needing purification or purgation if I were.
They have this notion of right and wrong (conscience) because A&E were imperfect and didn’t have that.
Because there is no notion of lust in the animal kingdom, they just “do it” and don’t care.
Sorry, I was unclear. I was trying not to get R-rated, but basically I’m talking about lustful thoughts.
Not always. We have many people whose stupidity and naivete is not fixed.
I’ll address this below, my idea of 3 levels of selfishness.
Yes I do and no they are not. I’m the weakest link.
I was using the Borg saying. They were these bad guys from the Star Trek: The Next Generation (and Voyager) series that were trying to basically forcefully get people into their collective. Anyone who dared to fight against them were told that resistance was futile and they would eventually lose the battle. Death or drone-hood. Few had a third option.
This is how I see God. With God, one has that option to become good and holy. Without God, it is impossible to get to the good side, though many fake it. The resistance is against the idea that one needs God.
“without me you can do nothing” - says the Big Boss.
My opinion is that there are three levels of selfishness.
Level 1: Legitimate self interest. Take care of yourself. Get enough sleep. Get enough to eat and drink. Get the medicine you need. Rest when you need it. My needs are filled.
Level 2: I want to do what I want to do. I put myself first, but I won’t hurt anyone. My wants must be fulfilled.
Level 3: I want to do what I want to do and I don’t care who I hurt. This is the CEO who lays off thousands of people so he can get a bigger bonus check. Then goes on TV and claims to be a big philanthropist. This is the level of Narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths (a lot of overlap between those three!)
Level 3 has evil involved and is pride at its worst. Level 2 is pride (because they’re not putting God first). Level 1 is OK.
Level 2 and 3 are sinful and are not permitted under the Catholic ethos. They are examples of “me-first-ism” and not putting God first.
But how is love defined? Warm fuzzies? Or actions that one chooses to better other people.
Thanks! I really appreciate the encouragement.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, Bob
)
Thank you, and God Bless your day!
If having a perfectly informed conscience is “perfection”, then we all share in such imperfection, correct?
Yes, we have “lustful thoughts” and those of a developed conscience will resent the rise of such thoughts, while animals do not have these restrictions. The story of A&E describes how we acquired the added feature.
Yes, but you can see that this is not a problem of “buggy software”, right? People do not “fix” their ignorance because they do not know the disvalue of their own ignorance, which is in itself a matter of ignorance. Notice my theme?: we do not have “buggy software”?
Then surely you experience God in those you love?
Hmmm. I am wondering how one might distinguish whether a person is “faking it”. Don’t we have to be very careful about saying “The Spirit is not working there”? Does God not work within those who do not profess Him? I think many people of no religion may know God better than those of us who profess. (Not to be argumentative.
)I like your structure, but allow me to throw in a “yeah, but”. So, with growth in love we come to include others in our sense of “self”. So, on level 2, with development of love your “wanting” includes the well being of children, parents, friends, all of those who you love. Ultimately, our love grows to include everyone, right? And then, such “putting myself first” comes to include all. “My wants” are for the well-being of everyone, even my “enemies”. In that sense, level 2 is not so bad, is it? In that sense, is it distinguishable from level one?
People who believe and act in these ways may have an interrupted development of love, right? It is desire that blinds us, as well as desire for justice/vengeance. The CEO says “I deserve this, they do not” and is blind to the harm done. He may have a very undeveloped empathy, but sociopaths and psychopaths are probably pretty rare among CEO’s, right? I am just as capable of doing such “worst”, when I am blinded by desire or fear of loss, in a punishing mode, etc.
I’m still thinking that it begins with commitment, but the “warm fuzzies” are sure to be part of it all. Of course, a commitment is a commitment to action. Does that seem vague?
Well, I appreciate your charity and stimulating discussion, so we have appreciation in both directions, Bob.Thanks! I really appreciate the encouragement.
Thank you, and God Bless your day!
- Status