Original Sin question

[Lucretius]

WOW. Talk about having your cake and eating it to.

So you think you should get to spend a few weeks in each place before you decide which one you like better? Now let’s be realistic here, the guided tour couldn’t occure until after death. So if you decide you like heaven better but you were destined for hell, does God have to give you a do over?

Just curious how exactly do you explain something to everyone without a single person having any possibility of misunderstanding?

Do you honestly believe no one chooses not to be with God?

I noticed you didn’t respond to my example of the Father and the son. I’m guessing you grew up making your own rules.

Why are we so scandalized by hellfire? Maybe it’s because we try to force the Divine to conform to human morality?

If we ask why God condemns to Hell, we also have to ask why God deificates to Heaven. Why is it that humans think that they ought not to be punished for their sins, yet find it really easy to think they deserve theosis? Vanity of vanities; all is vanity and vexation of the spirit! The saved are the ones who know they deserve hell, and the damned are the ones who think they deserve Heaven.

In other words, if we truly understood how terrible even a venial sin is, we would see hell as a mercy! That is, we are scandalized by hell because we think we are more righteous then we actually are.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[hasantas]

But is it just how reality seems to be? If the father is a gambler, the son doesn’t receive an inherence? The son isn’t at fault, but he still suffers the consequences?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Son may suffer from some faults of father as physically but nobody can say that son is a gambler too. Debt or property holdings can be heritage but noboy arrest son because of father 's killing.

 

[grannymh]

When it comes to explaining Original Sin, why do people describe God as if He were human? I would think that Catholics would know the difference between Divinity and humanity.

 

[Lucretius]

Son may suffer from some faults of father as physically but nobody can say that son is a gambler too. Debt or property holdings can be heritage but noboy arrest son because of father 's killing.

The analogy was never meant to be perfect. In original sin, humans not only inherit a ontological state, but also a tendency to sin.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[grannymh]

The analogy was never meant to be perfect. In original sin, humans not only inherit a ontological state, but also a tendency to sin.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Instead of a non-perfect analogy of human father and human son, why not simply point out that God is Divine and that makes it totally different. It should be obvious that there cannot be two equal same almighty etc., gods at the same time. The simple acknowledgement that the One God is Divine is why there is the necessary Divinity of Jesus Christ. Apparently, shades of Arianism still exists.

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

**CCC 396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

**CCC 398 **In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

My apology. I fail to see the purpose of using analogies (never meant to be perfect) when the actual original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity is obviously easier to deal with.

 

[laocmo]

When it comes to explaining Original Sin, why do people describe God as if He were human? I would think that Catholics would know the difference between Divinity and humanity.

It would seem to me that the great majority of Catholics, especially my many Catholic friends and relatives , think of God as some benevolent father figure who lives somewhere called Heaven. And Heaven must be “somewhere” like here because it contains at least two or three human bodies who ascended there or were assumed into there. In my opinion, if the majority of world’s Catholics, especially those with less than the norm for education were to be told about God as described solely by his theological attributes, they would find him a complete unapproachable mystery. My biggest complaint about my Catholic education is the childish picture of God that was painted by the well meaning nuns. I concluded a long time ago that based on his church approved attributes, God was someone who I didn’t really want to know.

 

[MT1926]

Why are we so scandalized by hellfire? Maybe it’s because we try to force the Divine to conform to human morality?

If we ask why God condemns to Hell, we also have to ask why God deificates to Heaven. Why is it that humans think that they ought not to be punished for their sins, yet find it really easy to think they deserve theosis? Vanity of vanities; all is vanity and vexation of the spirit! The saved are the ones who know they deserve hell, and the damned are the ones who think they deserve Heaven.

In other words, if we truly understood how terrible even a venial sin is, we would see hell as a mercy! That is, we are scandalized by hell because we think we are more righteous then we actually are.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I apologize if my wording was in error. I did not mean to come off “scandalized” that we can’t be condemned to Hell by God or that we ought not be punished for our sins. Just the fact that there is a Hell is proof positive that God has created a place for the damned to be condemned.

I wasn’t trying to force the Divine to conform to my morality, maybe you could point out in my past posts how my comments came across as vanity?

I just wanted to add that I totally agree with your statement.

“The saved are the ones who know they deserve hell, and the damned are the ones who think they deserve Heaven.”

Which is what I was trying to address with the other poster’s issue of no one “chooses” not to be with God.

To expand further, using your statement, The person that chooses to be with God knows they have sinned and are not worthy of heaven. Realizing they deserve hell will bring them to God and ask forgiveness in the hope that they will be saved. The person that chooses not to be with God is the one that can justify their sin to themselves. This self justification makes them think they are worthy of heaven. This false sense of security keeps them from coming to God to seek forgiveness and they will most likely be damned.

To me when I hear the words God condemns us to hell, with no further expansion of what that means, it leaves room for interpreting this to mean he has already decided if he might or might not forgive us our trespasses when we seek forgiveness.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

[grannymh]

It would seem to me that the great majority of Catholics, especially my many Catholic friends and relatives , think of God as some benevolent father figure who lives somewhere called Heaven. And Heaven must be “somewhere” like here because it contains at least two or three human bodies who ascended there or were assumed into there. In my opinion, if the majority of world’s Catholics, especially those with less than the norm for education were to be told about God as described solely by his theological attributes, they would find him a complete unapproachable mystery. My biggest complaint about my Catholic education is the childish picture of God that was painted by the well meaning nuns. I concluded a long time ago that based on his church approved attributes, God was someone who I didn’t really want to know.

When I was a child, mothers would ask – if your friend jumped off a bridge, would you follow?

It sounds like you may possibly need to decide if you are going to jump off the bridge with your many Catholic friends and relatives.

Note: One does not have to know “church approved attributes” to know that God in the first three chapters of Genesis is not a human.

 

[Solmyr]

WOW. Talk about having your cake and eating it to.

So you think you should get to spend a few weeks in each place before you decide which one you like better? Now let’s be realistic here, the guided tour couldn’t occure until after death.

Why? Is God not omnipotent any more?

So if you decide you like heaven better but you were destined for hell, does God have to give you a do over?

According to Catholicism, NO ONE is destined to hell.

Just curious how exactly do you explain something to everyone without a single person having any possibility of misunderstanding?

Very easy. By tailoring the explanation to the person’s ability to understand.

Do you honestly believe no one chooses not to be with God?

Obviously, those have never heard of God, or never believed in God can not choose against him. Those who believe in God but would reject him anyway are mentally insane, so their choice against God would be insane, too. And mentally incapacitated people are not responsible for their choices or actions.

I noticed you didn’t respond to my example of the Father and the son. I’m guessing you grew up making your own rules.

My parents never made nonsensical rules, and as soon as I was old enough to understand, there were no more “rules” just suggestions. And since they were reasonable, there was no need to neglect them.

 

[Solmyr]

Cannot these quotes be better understood with context and faith? Comparing four generations to a thousand generations reveals just how powerful God’s justice, and how kind His mercy is? Does the statement hhave to be literal down to the letter?

The problem is that the church does not declare up front, which parts are to accepted literally and which parts are allegorical. This way the apologists can play “hide and seek”. If something seems to support their stance… it is literal. If something is against them, it is not literal. Sorry, but this is called intellectual dishonesty.

And asserting that there is no natural consequence to disobediening God forgets that God is Love, and so His commands aren’t arbritrary, but rather reveal a rational understanding of our very nature.

That is not acceptable. What we “see” about God (his actions and inactions) does not qualify as “love”. At best it shows total lack of caring… at worst…

Cannnot God command to us to do what is objectively Good for us, and to prohibit what is objectively bad? Wouldn’t that be similar to the commands a good father gives?

Good fathers do not give commands, they provide guidelines and protection. They also prevent making FATAL choices… and to HELL with the “free will” of the children. A good father does not “command” not to poke a wire into a live socket, he would cover the socket so that the children cannot electrocute themselves. What “good” father would allow his kids to play with loaded weapons?

 

[MT1926]

Why? Is God not omnipotent any more?

Very easy. By tailoring the explanation to the person’s ability to understand.

What does God’s being omnipotent have to do with us getting whatever we want? and even if he did tailor it perfectly to us do you really think everyone would listen. Let’s be honest here, we live in a world where people do things all the time even when warned not to, why would it be any different with an explanation of salvation?

Those who believe in God but would reject him anyway are mentally insane, so their choice against God would be insane, too.

How does rejecting God make someone insane? People take chances with their life all the time does that make them insane?

My parents never made nonsensical rules, and as soon as I was old enough to understand, there were no more “rules” just suggestions. And since they were reasonable, there was no need to neglect them.

Could you please define a nonsensical rule. I didn’t want to go into details of the rules, but the rules I was talking about were being part of the family, helping out with the house or yard work. Not coming and going without saying hello or goodbye. Putting the milk back in the fridge. Not showing up at 2 am with 10 friends without giving us a heads up. Are these nonsensical rules that if not followed it is the parents fault for kicking him out of the house or the sons fault for leaving?

 

[hasantas]

The analogy was never meant to be perfect. In original sin, humans not only inherit a ontological state, but also a tendency to sin.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Yes. Humanbeing has very powerful tendency to sin. Humanbeing inherited a very weak disposition from Adam which has desires, lust. So human may commit sins very easily.

If we have tendency to sin but that do not make us sinful unless we commit it. And we choose the evil and good by free will. Our duty is to prevent ourselves to commit sins.

 

[Lucretius]

I apologize if my wording was in error. I did not mean to come off “scandalized” that we can’t be condemned to Hell by God or that we ought not be punished for our sins. Just the fact that there is a Hell is proof positive that God has created a place for the damned to be condemned.

I wasn’t trying to force the Divine to conform to my morality, maybe you could point out in my past posts how my comments came across as vanity?

I just wanted to add that I totally agree with your statement.

“The saved are the ones who know they deserve hell, and the damned are the ones who think they deserve Heaven.”

Which is what I was trying to address with the other poster’s issue of no one “chooses” not to be with God.

To expand further, using your statement, The person that chooses to be with God knows they have sinned and are not worthy of heaven. Realizing they deserve hell will bring them to God and ask forgiveness in the hope that they will be saved. The person that chooses not to be with God is the one that can justify their sin to themselves. This self justification makes them think they are worthy of heaven. This false sense of security keeps them from coming to God to seek forgiveness and they will most likely be damned.

To me when I hear the words God condemns us to hell, with no further expansion of what that means, it leaves room for interpreting this to mean he has already decided if he might or might not forgive us our trespasses when we seek forgiveness.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Sorry! I wasn’t really targeting you I was pointing out a common flaw in humans, which we call pride.

I quoted your post basically because it was the one that inspired my post

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[MT1926]

Sorry! I wasn’t really targeting you I was pointing out a common flaw in humans, which we call pride.

I quoted your post basically because it was the one that inspired my post

Christi pax,

Lucretius

All good. You just had me scratching my head wondering what did I say wrong.

Agreed pride is a flaw that we all have from time to time.

Thanks God for loving us so that he will purify us of our pride in Purgatory.

 

[Solmyr]

What does God’s being omnipotent have to do with us getting whatever we want?

I said that giving a guided tour of heaven and hell would allow everyone to make a meaningful decision. And God’s omnipotence would allow this tour, BEFORE death.

and even if he did tailor it perfectly to us do you really think everyone would listen. Let’s be honest here, we live in a world where people do things all the time even when warned not to, why would it be any different with an explanation of salvation?

Because no sane person would choose eternal torment over eternal bliss.

How does rejecting God make someone insane? People take chances with their life all the time does that make them insane?

Read directly above. Committing suicide is considered to be a form of insanity. Condemning oneself to eternal torture would be much worse.

Could you please define a nonsensical rule.

“Thou shalt not masturbate” would be one.

 

[Lucretius]

Because no sane person would choose eternal torment over eternal bliss.

I have two thoughts on this statement:

1. we aren’t choosing eternal bliss or eternal torture, but God or ourselves. Fear of hell, nor the mere desire for paradise is not enough.
2. to the damned in this life, hell might seem preferable to heaven…even though they have been warned otherwise.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

1. we aren’t choosing eternal bliss or eternal torture, but God or ourselves. Fear of hell, nor the mere desire for paradise is not enough.

We have no REAL choice, because God hides above the clouds. Without God manifesting himself and declaring what the requirements are to get to heaven, all we have is unsubstantiated assumptions. That is why I said that we need a “guided tour”, so we can make INFORMED decisions.

1. to the damned in this life, hell might seem preferable to heaven…even though they have been warned otherwise.

Warned? By whom? When and where? If we would KNOW, really KNOW what the end result would be if we did not follow the commandments, if we would be given a SAMPLE of the suffering to experience ourselves, then no sane person would make that “choice”. No one chooses suffering.

 

[Lucretius]

We have no REAL choice, because God hides above the clouds. Without God manifesting himself and declaring what the requirements are to get to heaven, all we have is unsubstantiated assumptions. That is why I said that we need a “guided tour”, so we can make INFORMED decisions.

He did. Some of it is recorded in the Gospels

Warned? By whom? When and where? If we would KNOW, really KNOW what the end result would be if we did not follow the commandments, if we would be given a SAMPLE of the suffering to experience ourselves, then no sane person would make that “choice”. No one chooses suffering.

Everyone endures suffering in this life (especially from the fruit of our own sins), so it is no excuse to say that you haven’t had a taste of what the suffering in hell is like.

Christ has told you what the result of your sins is. Furthermore, the results of sins are clearly present in this life too, even with our ignorance: why is it that you refuse to see them?

And you are right: no one would choose suffering as an end (as a means is another story). The only way to hell is in ignorance. However, some ignorance is culpable: we often ignore the truth and blind ourselves.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

He did. Some of it is recorded in the Gospels

Why do you think that this is acceptable evidence for anyone who is a non-Christian?

Everyone endures suffering in this life (especially from the fruit of our own sins), so it is no excuse to say that you haven’t had a taste of what the suffering in hell is like.

We do NOT choose the temporal sufferings. And they are unlike the alleged INFINITE sufferings in hell.

Christ has told you what the result of your sins is. Furthermore, the results of sins are clearly present in this life too, even with our ignorance: why is it that you refuse to see them?

Because that is only a myth.

And you are right: no one would choose suffering as an end (as a means is another story). The only way to hell is in ignorance. However, some ignorance is culpable: we often ignore the truth and blind ourselves.

One cannot commit a “mortal” sin through ignorance. One must commit the act with full knowledge and full consent. That is why non-Christians cannot commit “mortal sins”.

 

[Lucretius]

Why do you think that this is acceptable evidence for anyone who is a non-Christian?

I don’t understand what you are trying to say? You say that God should come down and tell us how to avoid hell, and when I point out that He did do this, you basically assert that it doesn’t count

We do NOT choose the temporal sufferings. And they are unlike the alleged INFINITE sufferings in hell.

Not directly, but our sinful actions do cause these sufferings, and we are really good at ignoring these facts to justify ourselves. A drunkard who drives and gets in an accident is culpable for his actions, and of course he didn’t choose to get behind the wheel because he was thinking about the suffering he would cause himself or others, but rather because he was deliberately ignoring the suffering his actions would cause.

Because that is only a myth.

Why do you think that? We have historical accounts that record His life, He founded a Church and a people (the Jews) that has miraculously survived and thrived under persecution for centuries, as well as continued teaching the same teachings despite the changing intellectual fads and corrupt clergy, and has delivered signs to this Church even to the present day. Among other things

One cannot commit a “mortal” sin through ignorance. One must commit the act with full knowledge and full consent. That is why non-Christians cannot commit “mortal sins”.

In a sense, mortal sin requires ignorance, and in a sense it mustn’t. The mortal sinner knows what he does is wrong, but often ignores this (puts out of his mind deliberately). There is such a thing as willful ignorance, and it is very, very common. In fact, it is this sort of ignorance and lies to ourselves that Jesus had in mind when he called the Pharisees hypocrites.

Christi pax,

Lucretius