Original Sin question

[BobCatholic]

This is an expression of the despair, correct?

Not necessarily despair, but more like sadness that I am not protected from evil.

Well, I suppose you are right, that can be seen as an imperfection. Omniscience would be wonderful, right?

I think you confused something. Omniscence is knowing everything. Naivete is not just not knowing everything, but more like “I’ll believe anything you tell me, because you’ll never lie to me, right?” to the devil who is the father of lies.

It is credulity.

Here is a related question, though: does naivete take away from the beauty of people?

It doesn’t. But it does take away from the alleged “perfection” of A&E.

This is “naivete” with a touch of resentment on it

No, stupidity is that one refuses to learn. God taught them something, clearly they didn’t get it! OH look! This snake tells me something different, so they conveniently forgot what they were told. Duh…

In addition, how were they to know that God was not talking to them through the snake?

Correct. They thought everyone is equally credible - that’s naivete as well, and credulity. It is a lack of judgment (not lack of knowledge).

We have plenty of people who know a lot but have poor judgment. The PhD in Astrophysics who thinks “OK, this guy wants to sell me the Brooklyn bridge, sounds like a great investment!” for example.

However, if we say that they actually said what you quoted, which is certainly possible, what aspect of “pride” was the root cause? IMO it behooves us to look into these things before saying that there is a bug in the the programming.

Pride is putting me me me me me me me me me me and me first. If they simply said “God said it, I believe it, case closed.” we’d be in a nice garden instead of suffering.

But no, they thought about themselves. “it looks good TO ME”

If we take fear out of the context of our own species, though, does it not serve all of God’s creatures?

Fear is a bug. Fear is the opposite of love. As a result, they lost their love of God and boom, blue screen of death crash.

That sounds like a “maybe”. That is, you may experience God in people that you love and who love you. Did I hear that correctly?

No, it says that I don’t know. I have a son with autism who I cannot connect with. No matter what I do. No matter what fun things I want to do with him, taking him to parks, Great America, water parks, fun places, malls, etc. He is attached to momma and I’m a distant second place (by hundreds of miles). I love him. I don’t know if he loves me. I don’t know if he is capable of loving me (since he only loves mommy).

Bringing this to “experience God” - perhaps this is God’s way of saying I have spiritual autism, and I can never relate to him because of my spiritual autism? That makes me scared.

Hmmm. Lots of labels. I once took a class in Abnormal Psych just to see if there were any disorders I could not relate to. The prof. would describe some disorder, and the class would fall silent, all certain that they had the disorder. I would raise my hand and ask “Aren’t we all a little like that?”. She would hesitate, and say, “yes, we are”. Labels can be dehumanizing sometimes, distracting us from beauty.

But certain things are dehumanizing.

Narcissism is dehumanizing. This is the person who’s mind is like this "me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me " and cannot fathom the reality that other people are out there, and they’re just as valuable as they are.
They are the ones who dehumanize others.

Sociopaths have a lot of overlap with narcissism, they do the same, dehumanize others and cannot sense any shame in doing evil. It is like the person who cannot feel pain so they can’t understand that causing pain to others is wrong (so they do evil).

Mental illness is not a dehumanizing label. Neither is Autism.

All of us are capable of growth and healing, right?

If it is not in God’s will, game over, won’t ever happen.

This depends on one’s image of God. I agree, heaven is a gift, and like all gifts, it is given without strings attached, right?

It has strings attached. Tons of them. And I’m hanging by the neck with them.

I don’t have a positive image of God, and I don’t want it to be this way! I wish God were “Daddy” who loved me; to me, he is distant and cold. I wish I could see the warm, loving part of God.

And then, why would a God who loves without limit, without condition, infinitely merciful, deny such a gift to anyone?

Because he doesn’t love without condition. We must do his will or else. His way or the highway. He puts us through the Dark Night of the Senses/Soul.

God doesn’t love without limit. If he did, we’d be in heaven with him NOW and none of this suffering.

God’s mercy is not infinite. The temporal punishments are proof of that. We are held temporally responsible for A&E’s sin (and the sins of our forefathers) even though we are not responsible in any way.

A priest once told us his opinion: “If we do choose to go to hell, we do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.”

This assumes we have a full choice.

If I have bugs in my software, and my choices are made with buggy code, tell me how that doesn’t negatively impact my free will?

I’m not saying free will is nullified in full, but where do we draw the line?

I struggle with why God creates us imperfect, the software crashes, and that makes it VERY EASY for elevator down! But if I wanted the up escalator, that is HARD.

Why can’t the choice be equally easy or hard? It is a set up for failure.

 

[BobCatholic]

You seem to be implying that Adam and Eve did not have sufficient knowledge or understanding to make a decision to obey God.

They were either stupid, naive, prideful, or fearful. They were imperfect. Their software was buggy. Thus, the software crash.

Hubris.

Which a defect in the software.

We are born into the world under original sin.

We are held temporally responsible for A&E’s sin and the sins of our ancestors.

 

[BobCatholic]

The story of humankind being expelled from the Garden of Eden does not mean that God evicted us as a just punishment for sin.

The eviction was just. The temporal punishing of the subsequent generations I question the justice of that.

It doesn’t mean I’m saying it is unjust, I say that justice is not in the equation for some reason.

When our sins are forgiven, is that unjust? No. Justice is not in the equation. In the same way, being temporally held responsible for A&E’s sin is the same thing - justice is not in the equation.

 

[PRmerger]

They were either stupid, naive, prideful, or fearful. They were imperfect. Their software was buggy. Thus, the software crash.

Which a defect in the software.

We are held temporally responsible for A&E’s sin and the sins of our ancestors.

Ummm…not sure why those posts in your response are attributed to me, but I am not the author.

 

[guanophore]

Because concupiscence is a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.

Our “lower appetites” are part of our human nature. They are built into us for survival. Would anyone claim that the instincts to survive, to breed, to eat, to associate are “contrary to reason” for any other member of the animal kingdom?

Why would it be considered some sort of wound, imposed by God as a punishment, for us to function the way we are created?

The preternatural gift of integrity (freedom from concupiscence) was lost for mankind through the original sin.

This is one way of looking at original sin, but there is plenty of room in the Catholic Church for legitimate differences. One different view would be that we are created naturally to have integrity, and that sin cannot take this integrity from us. In fact, one might observe that the tendency to do what one believes is right is much stronger than the tendency toward sin. Both of these views are contained.

I never posted that “a Catholic is required to see that our inclination to sin is greater than our inclination to do what we think is good”. First of all see would not be the correct word, but with dogma, it would be accept.

There are certainly many acceptable ways to “see” what the Church is teaching.

 Secondly the dogma is not about "think is good" but about concupiscence which is a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.  So the inclination, at birth and without grace, is to satisfy the lower appetite contrary to reason.  Coming back continually with that same phrase even though I have explained the difference a few times, is ignoring the point.

There are just more than one legitimate points to the concept.

And please, when you come up with something from a valid authority that says a Catholic is required to see that our inclination to sin is greater than our inclination to do what we think is good, let me know.

You see, Vico, it does not make any sense to expect people to accept a dogma that goes contrary to one’s perceptions. If one “sees” that people are inclined more to do what they think is good than toward evil, on cannot, in good conscience, betray themselves by accepting an opposite view.

Thank you, Vico, you are a stalwart for the Baltimore Catechism and it is great to have people who stand up for the view of Catholicism that is more traditional. Change is never easy, and the more traditional approach gives comfort to those of us who find change frightening or unholy.

There is room in the Catholic Church for traditionalists who are afraid of change, and think modernism is unholy, and there is room for a more updates and psychologically sophisticated point of view. We don’t all have to be fundamentalists (though that position is fine for you, Vico, and others who need it). What is most important right now is that you feel comforted by this traditional view, and you should be supported in holding to it, until you can become comfortable enough to change to a more sophisticated view.

 

[Vico]

I’m sorry, Vico, to imply that you would. I meant “that the Church would select”. It was an improper communication on my part.


Right, so do you then agree that the Catholic can certainly see that our inclination to do what we think is good can be simultaneously observed while believing we are inclined to sin and believing that concupiscence is a desire of the lower appetite?

I am not getting the part about satisfaction of the “lower appetite” being contrary to reason. Are eating and crying for help part of the “lower appetite” demonstrated by the newborn unbaptized child? The child desires food and comfort, the child desires rest. Acts in concert with such desires are not contrary to reason. So you see, the vast majority of what the child does, growing into adulthood, is inclined to do what he thinks is good, and objectively speaking is good. Of course, there are instances where strong desire (concupiscence) does some serious alterations to our minds, and we may end up doing things that are totally irrational, acts contrary to God’s law.

Moral development remains a different issue.

The point I am making, Vico, is that there is plenty of room for the Catholic to observe and believe things that do not conflict with the Catechism, and the observation that people are inclined to do what they think is good is one of these.

Original sin remains an explanation for why people are all born capable of sin. The concept precedes the science of genetics, but is definitely accurate in the observation that we are not “empty slates” when we are born. We are all quite capable of sin, or “inclined”. By the grace of God, the baptized (either formally or by desire) are given the ability to counteract such capacity (though its application is voluntary).

Fair enough?

Collins Dictionary

See (verb)
2 (when tr, may take a clause as object) to perceive (an idea) mentally; understand ⇒ I explained the problem but he could not see it

Observe (verb)
5. (transitive) to abide by, keep, or follow (a custom, tradition, law, holiday, etc)

Right, so do you then agree that the Catholic can certainly see that our inclination to do what we think is good can be simultaneously observed while believing we are inclined to sin and believing that concupiscence is a desire of the lower appetite?

No, we are not obliged to see that we have an inclination to do what we think is good, rather, we are obliged to accept the dogma on concupiscence: we are included to sin in our natural state at birth, without the saving grace of God.

“Concupiscence, has received the name of sin because it is a sin to consent to it” Augustine in De Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, 44.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[fhansen]

Our “lower appetites” are part of our human nature. They are built into us for survival. Would anyone claim that the instincts to survive, to breed, to eat, to associate are “contrary to reason” for any other member of the animal kingdom?

Why would it be considered some sort of wound, imposed by God as a punishment, for us to function the way we are created?

The “punishment” is simply the natural consequence of creation being disassociated from its Creator. When this occurs, man often no longer *controls *his lower appetites. Greed and selfishness tend to prevail; harm to self and neighbor results. Sin often reigns IOW. Man is in the awkward position of no longer being who he was created to be. Until the knowledge of God is restored and relationship with the Creator is reestablished, at which time we’ve only started on a path of righteousness/transformation. The lower appetites are good; lack of control over them (concupiscence), not good. As Augustine put it, "The source of all evil, is good."

This is one way of looking at original sin, but there is plenty of room in the Catholic Church for legitimate differences. One different view would be that we are created naturally to have integrity, and that sin cannot take this integrity from us. In fact, one might observe that the tendency to do what one believes is right is much stronger than the tendency toward sin. Both of these views are contained.

The tendency to do what one believes is right is the cause of sin. Only to the extent that man is partnered with God, apart from Whom he can do nothing, does man truly begin to do what is right. Otherwise he just does what is right in his own eyes, which may include gossip, beheading, or theft, to name a few.

 

[guanophore]

Collins Dictionary

See (verb)
2 (when tr, may take a clause as object) to perceive (an idea) mentally; understand ⇒ I explained the problem but he could not see it

Observe (verb)
5. (transitive) to abide by, keep, or follow (a custom, tradition, law, holiday, etc)

No, we are not obliged to see that we have an inclination to do what we think is good, rather, we are obliged to accept the dogma on concupiscence: we are included to sin in our natural state at birth, without the saving grace of God.

You seem to be saying that, to be a “good Catholic” it is necessary for one to accept the idea of concupiscence, by which you mean it is a given that human beings are more inclined toward evil than good. This seems to be a very rigid and fundamentalist way of approaching the mythical story of Adam and Eve. The story is really written to explain why it is important to be obedient to authority, because that was essential to survival of the tribe.

“Concupiscence, has received the name of sin because it is a sin to consent to it” Augustine in De Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, 44.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

This last one sums up the point well… It would not be appropriate for a Catholic to go against his conscience to accept the dogma of concupiscence if that Catholics life experience showed him that people are more inclined to do what they think is good. It would be acting against conscience.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

What is true and good is filterered through our experiences, which form our conscience, so what is good and evil must be viewed from the perspective of our lived perceptions.

The “punishment” is simply the natural consequence of creation being disassociated from its Creator. When this occurs, man often no longer *controls *his lower appetites. Greed and selfishness tend to prevail; harm to self and neighbor results. Sin often reigns IOW. Man is in the awkward position of no longer being who he was created to be. Until the knowledge of God is restored and relationship with the Creator is reestablished, at which time we’ve only started on a path of righteousness/transformation. The lower appetites are good; lack of control over them (concupiscence), not good. As Augustine put it, "The source of all evil, is good."

But we are never disassociated from our Creator. Nothing separates us from His love. He always receives us, always forgives us. But it is common for humans to project this view upon God, when our conscience accuses us and we feel guilty, we assume that God is angry or wrathful with us. This theme can be seen throughout the OT, where the writers projected their concept of an angry God into the text.

This concept of an angry, wrathful, punishing God is not consistent with the lived experience of a person who finds God infinitely merciful and forgiving.

The tendency to do what one believes is right is the cause of sin. Only to the extent that man is partnered with God, apart from Whom he can do nothing, does man truly begin to do what is right. Otherwise he just does what is right in his own eyes, which may include gossip, beheading, or theft, to name a few.

I think you are making a blanket statement that cannot be applied across the board. Clearly there are times when one does what one believes is right, and does not sin. Even Jesus confirms that men, “being evil, still give good gifts to children”. Church teaching is clear that people can make correct moral decisions even if they are not partnered with God.

The actions you use for examples are harmful, and are considered sins because they go against reason,and demonstrate that the person committing them does not see the value in the other person. That does not mean they are culpable, or blameworthy, since they are blind and ignorant.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Bob, nice to hear from you!

Not necessarily despair, but more like sadness that I am not protected from evil.

Not necessarily despair, but sadness. Got it.

I think you confused something. Omniscence is knowing everything. Naivete is not just not knowing everything, but more like “I’ll believe anything you tell me, because you’ll never lie to me, right?” to the devil who is the father of lies.

It is credulity.

Yes, naivete can be seen as an imperfection.

It doesn’t. But it does take away from the alleged “perfection” of A&E.

I agree, A&E were not perfect in awareness. Does God as you know Him give us the freedom to make this observation?

No, stupidity is that one refuses to learn. God taught them something, clearly they didn’t get it! OH look! This snake tells me something different, so they conveniently forgot what they were told. Duh…

The way I look at it, they did not seem to be so stubborn about learning, but like us, desire influenced their consciences, they had doubt about the truth of the teaching. It is an induced blindness, is it not? Can you relate? I can.

Correct. They thought everyone is equally credible - that’s naivete as well, and credulity. It is a lack of judgment (not lack of knowledge).

We have plenty of people who know a lot but have poor judgment. The PhD in Astrophysics who thinks “OK, this guy wants to sell me the Brooklyn bridge, sounds like a great investment!” for example.

Yes, we are imperfect in judgment because we are imperfect in awareness. IMO.

Pride is putting me me me me me me me me me me and me first. If they simply said “God said it, I believe it, case closed.” we’d be in a nice garden instead of suffering.

But no, they thought about themselves. “it looks good TO ME”

But look, Bob, if God had suddenly showed up repeating the threat of death, and gave them the awareness of other subsequent consequences (i.e. to their children and grandchildren) they would have changed their minds. They would have thought about it in terms of “me first” saying “hmmm. eating the fruit no longer looks good TO ME”.

We cannot escape the fact that people do what they think is best in terms of a first-person perspective, right? Even when we consider the needs of others, or will of God, we act in accord with our personal value of others and God. Is there any escape from making it about ME? To me, every generation is the “me generation”. It is our nature. It is when we come to love all our neighbors as ourselves that the Kingdom is brought forth. “Me” and “we” become One through love, right?

Fear is a bug. Fear is the opposite of love. As a result, they lost their love of God and boom, blue screen of death crash.

A&E lost their love of God? Why? Are you sure?

No, it says that I don’t know. I have a son with autism who I cannot connect with. No matter what I do. No matter what fun things I want to do with him, taking him to parks, Great America, water parks, fun places, malls, etc. He is attached to momma and I’m a distant second place (by hundreds of miles). I love him. I don’t know if he loves me. I don’t know if he is capable of loving me (since he only loves mommy).

This too must be saddening.

So you don’t know if you are experiencing God through others that you love, and love you?

Bringing this to “experience God” - perhaps this is God’s way of saying I have spiritual autism, and I can never relate to him because of my spiritual autism? That makes me scared.

Is this a fear of God?

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

BobCatholic:

But certain things are dehumanizing.

Narcissism is dehumanizing. This is the person who’s mind is like this "me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me " and cannot fathom the reality that other people are out there, and they’re just as valuable as they are.
They are the ones who dehumanize others.

Well, we all are capable of dehumanizing others, right? “Narcissist” is another one of those labels, I think. It is a label used in resentment of our own capacity to be self-centered. Hey, doesn’t God want us to care about ourselves? Yes, there is something to be said and reprimanded about benefiting ourselves at the expense of others, but reprimanding in itself is not a criticism of the goodness of humanity.

Sociopaths have a lot of overlap with narcissism, they do the same, dehumanize others and cannot sense any shame in doing evil. It is like the person who cannot feel pain so they can’t understand that causing pain to others is wrong (so they do evil).

Mental illness is not a dehumanizing label. Neither is Autism.

It can be, if you ask people who have been so labeled. Autism is a very difficult condition, you remain in my prayers. Your son is still a person, as you know, but others may “write him off” as “one of those”.

What you presented is an accurate view of sociopathy, I think, except that the sociopath does not change his value of others. Because of a disabled ability to empathize, the sociopath does not know of the value of others in the first place.

If it is not in God’s will, game over, won’t ever happen.

Is it not God’s will that we all grow and heal?

It has strings attached. Tons of them. And I’m hanging by the neck with them.

I don’t have a positive image of God, and I don’t want it to be this way! I wish God were “Daddy” who loved me; to me, he is distant and cold. I wish I could see the warm, loving part of God.

Can we not know such love through the love of other people? It comes back to the question about experiencing love from others we love and who love us.

Because he doesn’t love without condition. We must do his will or else. His way or the highway. He puts us through the Dark Night of the Senses/Soul.

God doesn’t love without limit. If he did, we’d be in heaven with him NOW and none of this suffering.

God’s mercy is not infinite. The temporal punishments are proof of that. We are held temporally responsible for A&E’s sin (and the sins of our forefathers) even though we are not responsible in any way.

Would it not be more freeing to let go of all of the past indoctrination, just a little? Or would God condemn you for seeing Him differently? You seem to cling to an image of God that you may not agree with. It is understandable, it comes from a dedication to obedience, perhaps? Do you think of seeing God differently as being disobedient, therefore an act to fear?

This assumes we have a full choice.

If I have bugs in my software, and my choices are made with buggy code, tell me how that doesn’t negatively impact my free will?

I’m not saying free will is nullified in full, but where do we draw the line?

I struggle with why God creates us imperfect, the software crashes, and that makes it VERY EASY for elevator down! But if I wanted the up escalator, that is HARD.

Why can’t the choice be equally easy or hard? It is a set up for failure.

Yes, I get it. If God is not infinitely merciful, then He might allow us to choose hell with our “buggy code”, not having a clue what we are doing. Given this image, one can remain with some insecurity, some fear.

Question: would you allow a person to choose hell without fully knowing what they are doing?

Thanks, Bob, you continue to bring up some great points, making this thread much more interesting!

 

[OneSheep]

No, we are not obliged to see that we have an inclination to do what we think is good, rather, we are obliged to accept the dogma on concupiscence: we are included to sin in our natural state at birth, without the saving grace of God.

Hi Vico,

Yes, we are not obliged to see that we have an inclination to do what we think is good, greater than our inclination to sin.

In addition, we are not forbidden to observe that people are more inclined to do what they think is good than they have an inclination to sin. Pelagianism as described by Fr. Hardon is not represented in that statement.

All humans depend on grace to overcome our concupiscence.

Thanks!

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

Yes, we are not obliged to see that we have an inclination to do what we think is good, greater than our inclination to sin.

In addition, we are not forbidden to observe that people are more inclined to do what they think is good than they have an inclination to sin. Pelagianism as described by Fr. Hardon is not represented in that statement.

All humans depend on grace to overcome our concupiscence.

Thanks!

Pelagianism asserts falsely that by free will man has the capacity of willing and doing good without God’s grace, however the dogma we have is that grace overcomes concupiscence which we are born under.

What people are inclined to think is good is sin, due to concupiscence, and this inclination is greater than to reason.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, naivete can be seen as an imperfection.

I agree, A&E were not perfect in awareness. Does God as you know Him give us the freedom to make this observation?

A&E cannot really justly be held responsible for their choice. They only had limited awareness, not "sufficient awareness’, which is how the Catholic Church defines what is needed to constitute a mortal sin. Since it was God Himself who limited their awareness, then He could not, as a loving and compassionate Creator, then punish them for acting in accordance with how He created them.

The way I look at it, they did not seem to be so stubborn about learning, but like us, desire influenced their consciences, they had doubt about the truth of the teaching.  It is an induced blindness, is it not?  Can you relate?  I can.

They had innate lack of complete knowledge, but they were also blinded by their base desires. This was not a result of concupiscence, though, because this was how they were before the “Fall”.

 Yes, we are imperfect in judgment because we are imperfect in awareness. IMO.

And a loving and compassionate God would not punish us for being imperfect in a way that he Created us to be.

 if God had suddenly showed up repeating the threat of death, and gave them the awareness of other subsequent consequences (i.e. to their children and grandchildren) they would have changed their minds.

God is at fault for leaving them alone to make their choice with only limited knowledge. If only He had provided sufficient awareness, they would have chosen differently. No human being willingly and knowingly acts against God, so when this happens, it is because people are ignorant and blind.

They would have thought about it in terms of “me first” saying “hmmm. eating the fruit no longer looks good TO ME”.

We cannot escape the fact that people do what they think is best in terms of a first-person perspective, right?

No, we cannot. Any person who is willing to be observant will easily be able to see that human beings don’t commit evil intentionally. Human beings commit evil because they do not see the VALUE in what they are deciding. People do not KNOW what is right to do, then choose not to do it. From their point of view, it is “best”.

Even when we consider the needs of others, or will of God, we act in accord with our personal value of others and God. Is there any escape from making it about ME?

No. Not only are we involved in our own decisions about how to act, we cannot escape that how we perceive ourselves, God, and others is a function of our own way of thinking and our experiences. We cannot escape the fact that we make such choices based upon our personal bias,

To me, every generation is the "me generation".  It is our nature.  It is when we come to love all our neighbors as ourselves that the Kingdom is brought forth.  "Me" and "we" become One through love, right?

But in the meantime, when we are still in the “I, me, me, mine” mindset, we still do not violate others intentionally. We always do what we think is right, and don’t succeed because we don’t have sufficient awareness.

Well, we all are capable of dehumanizing others, right?  "Narcissist" is another one of those labels, I think.  It is a label used in resentment of our own capacity to be self-centered.

We can come to “hate” ourselves, as our own conscience judges us and finds us wanting.

Hey, doesn’t God want us to care about ourselves?

He calls upon us to love others AS WE LOVE OURSELVES. This means, the more compassionate we are toward ourselves, the more we will be able to love others. We need to start with ourselves, and purge the image of the resentful and punishing God that has gotten stuck in our psyches.

Yes, there is something to be said and reprimanded about benefiting ourselves at the expense of others, but reprimanding in itself is not a criticism of the goodness of humanity.

Self recrimmination is just a symptom of a distorted concept of God. God always, loves, always seeks for us, always forgives us. Holding a concept of God as punishing, reprimanding, and saddling humanity with the consequences of other people’s sins demonstrates a very wounded concept of God.

What you presented is an accurate view of sociopathy, I think, except that the sociopath does not change his value of others. Because of a disabled ability to empathize, the sociopath does not know of the value of others in the first place.

But this definition applies to any/all who sin. Whenever an evil is committed, it happens because one does not know the value of others.

It comes back to the question about experiencing love from others we love and who love us.

And our own lived experience is the most reliable source of Truth we have.

Would it not be more freeing to let go of all of the past indoctrination, just a little? Or would God condemn you for seeing Him differently? You seem to cling to an image of God that you may not agree with. It is understandable, it comes from a dedication to obedience, perhaps? Do you think of seeing God differently as being disobedient, therefore an act to fear?

God does not want us to be afraid, so when we have a concept of God that engenders fear, or comes from fear, it is a sign that we have a distorted concept of God.

 

[guanophore]

. If God is not infinitely merciful, then He might allow us to choose hell with our “buggy code”, not having a clue what we are doing. Given this image, one can remain with some insecurity, some fear.

The image of God as anything other than “infinitely merciful” represents a wounded conscience, a wounded experience that results in a person having an unclear/imperfect view of God. Such things are a prQojection of our own wounded psyche.

Question: would you allow a person to choose hell without fully knowing what they are doing?

Yes, because hell is just a form of therapy and rehabilitiation. Once a person undertstands, and comes to sufficient awareness, one will no longer be imprisioned there.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, because hell is just a form of therapy and rehabilitiation. Once a person undertstands, and comes to sufficient awareness, one will no longer be imprisioned there.

 

[OneSheep]

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

Hi PR!

What is it in particular that you are saying no to?

I was hoping that you might respond to my post 318, you seemed enthusiastic about investigating, but it sort of ended there? It’s okay, but I was looking forward to continuing.

God bless you, and your efforts.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR!

What is it in particular that you are saying no to?

I was hoping that you might respond to my post 318, you seemed enthusiastic about investigating, but it sort of ended there? It’s okay, but I was looking forward to continuing.

God bless you, and your efforts.

Good morning, OS!

This is what I was saying no to: hell is just a form of therapy and rehabilitiation. Once a person undertstands, and comes to sufficient awareness, one will no longer be imprisioned there.

And I have responded to the best of my abilities to this discussion.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, OS!

This is what I was saying no to: hell is just a form of therapy and rehabilitiation. Once a person undertstands, and comes to sufficient awareness, one will no longer be imprisioned there.

And I have responded to the best of my abilities to this discussion.

Hi PR’

What I meant in that response to another poster was that the Judaic version of hell he presented makes sense in light of an infinitely merciful God.

Do you disagree?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR’

What I meant in that response to another poster was that the Judaic version of hell he presented makes sense in light of an infinitely merciful God.

Do you disagree?

As with almost all heresies, it’s the demand for an “ONLY” where none is required*.

Thus, “God is merciful ONLY” is not part of our theology. God is ALSO “infinitely just”.

And “infinitely merciful” combined with “infinitely just” = hell. Eternally so.

“Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.”–Peter Kreeft

---

*ONLYs that are curiously inserted where none is necessary:

Faith ONLY
Science ONLY
Bible ONLY
Reason ONLY
Me and my Bible ONLY

 

[Vico]

Our “lower appetites” are part of our human nature. They are built into us for survival. Would anyone claim that the instincts to survive, to breed, to eat, to associate are “contrary to reason” for any other member of the animal kingdom?

Why would it be considered some sort of wound, imposed by God as a punishment, for us to function the way we are created?

This is one way of looking at original sin, but there is plenty of room in the Catholic Church for legitimate differences. One different view would be that we are created naturally to have integrity, and that sin cannot take this integrity from us. In fact, one might observe that the tendency to do what one believes is right is much stronger than the tendency toward sin. Both of these views are contained.

There are certainly many acceptable ways to “see” what the Church is teaching.

There are just more than one legitimate points to the concept. …

The desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason (called concupiscence) is a conflict in the natural man (without the gift of integrity that Adam and Eve had). The first parents choose this, for themselves and us, over reason.

This matter is does not require the assent of faith, since it is Sent. fidei proxima (proximate to the Faith), but cannot be disputed or rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 103-104:

1. The Gifts of Integrity The supernatural endowment of the first lllen (iustitia originalis) included, in addition to the absolute supernatural gift of Sanctifying Grace, certain preternatural gifts, the so-called “dona integritatis”:
   
   a) The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   ​

The Council of Trent explains that concupiscence ,was called a sin by St. Paul because it flows from sin and makes one inclined to sin (quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat: D 792). But if it does flow from sin, then it did not exist before sin. Cf. D 2123, 1026.

Holy Writ attests the perfect harmony between reason and sensuality. Gn.2, 25: “And they were both naked … and were not ashamed.” It was only sin that gave rise to the feeling of shame (Gn. 3, 7. 10). The Fathers defend the donum integritatis against the Pelagians, who regarded concupiscence, not as a defect of nature (defectus naturae), but as a power of nature (vigor naturae). St. Augustine teaches that the first man, by reason of the gift of integrity, had the possibility of easily avoiding sin (posse nonpecare: De corrept. et gratia 12, 33).​