Original Sin question

[Vico]

Thanks, Vico

There must be a fine line somewhere between the varieties of Pelagianism and the idea of “impulse”.

For example, we worship not a God who plays favorites:

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Matt5:44-45

Therefore the impetus is not spared from anyone, correct, even though some may not respond to the impulse of grace?

So, Pelagianism says that grace comes from within, naturally vs. doctrine teaches of an “impulse of grace” that comes from without, supernaturally? Is that the distinction?

If so, it makes me wonder why there was so much fuss about Pelagianism. In light of the incredible wonder of all nature, including human nature, the distinction between natural and supernatural can be quite blurred.

Comments?

***Pelagianism ***was a significant heresy.

CNA: “Pelagius taught that by natural means, such as an austere lifestyle, we could over come our personal sins. We could merit heaven by a natural faith without God’s supernatural help - that is grace. According to him, the Law of Moses was as effective as the Gospel for salvation.”
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/heresies/pelagianism/

Yes, God gives actual grace even before conversion.

Catechism

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49
2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.​

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning fhansen,

Hello again, OneSheep. If I may: In this world God doesn’t play favorites-that’s the point; free will is allowed it’s sway, either for good or evil. In the next world, however, good is the only flavor allowed in, even as He desires all to draw near to him.

Hmmm. The word “allow” puts the choice to heaven back in God’s hands, but this runs contrary to the idea that hell is a chosen state:

youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2544498893&feature=iv&src_vid=rwJ8j-gNosQ&v=dmsa0sg4Od4

I think you are referring to a hell with the door locked from the outside, right?

And yet the distinction between, say, humans beheading humans vs God’s ideal for man is not at all blurred.

I agree. The humans beheading humans are blind and ignorant. If grace comes in the form of awareness, the evildoers have not received such grace, or are resisting it. However, it looks clear that grace is not just a matter of awareness.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

***Pelagianism ***was a significant heresy.

CNA: “Pelagius taught that by natural means, such as an austere lifestyle, we could over come our personal sins. We could merit heaven by a natural faith without God’s supernatural help - that is grace. According to him, the Law of Moses was as effective as the Gospel for salvation.”
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/heresies/pelagianism/

I’m going to translate the word “merit” into “choose God”, for “merit” implies a “sending” while Fr. Barron here is describing hell as a self-imposed exhile:

youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2544498893&feature=iv&src_vid=rwJ8j-gNosQ&v=dmsa0sg4Od4

Note: The verses Fr. Barron lists from the Gospel are all addressed in the Linn’s book, Understanding difficult Scriptures in a Healing Way; all of those verses are carefully examined and clarified in a way which IMO actually goes even further to support Fr. Barron.

Again, I am still confused. Was Pelagius’ error such that he left God out of the “natural” faith? This is indeed an error, for all of the natural comes from a supernatural source. It seems to me that a bit more conversation on the subject in light of the progress of 1500 years of unfolding revelation would find more common ground; and some minor rethinking and rephrasing by a pro-Pelagian theologian would be right in line with modern theology.

Yes, God gives actual grace even before conversion.

Catechism

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49
2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.​

If I remember right, grace is an extremely difficult item to pin down. For example, the alcoholic who suffers an extreme is “graced” with the suffering, for it eventually (if hurtful enough) turns him from drink. So, is the grace in the suffering? Is it in the desire to turn from suffering? All humans desire to turn from suffering; the problem with addiction is that the individual is caught in a mode where the suffering is resolved by using more of the drug of choice. So, is grace the “impetus” by which a person finally pulls out of the vicious cycle? If so, we go back to the fact that God gives us free will. God has already given the addict the grace to pull out of the cycle, but He does not force him out, the man has to utilize the grace given. And then, how does he not utilize the grace if not making choices from his own God-given nature? (a supernatural source)

It seems to me that there is a simpler way of presenting all of this. I am not opposed to the idea that perhaps there were early theologians who over-reacted to Pelagius; they may have feared that Pelagius’ theology undermined the importance of the Incarnation and the RCC.

 

[simpleas]

Hello again, OneSheep. If I may: In this world God doesn’t play favorites-that’s the point; free will is allowed it’s sway, either for good or evil. In the next world, however, good is the only flavor allowed in, even as He desires all to draw near to him.

And yet the distinction between, say, humans beheading humans vs God’s ideal for man is not at all blurred.

This makes me think, why would God allow two humans to make a choice for the rest of the human race, knowing there would be billions of humans in the world in the future, most I would say living quite well with each other, not in the ideal Catholic way, but at least not killing each other, but rather accepting differences between each other.

God could have just made sure humans wouldn’t “eat from the wrong tree” so that they would only be good, by not placing such tree in the garden, but he gave them a choice…

Why did God place humans in a peaceful setting, telling them to fill the earth as though the whole earth should be explored, not just a garden.
And now we believe we will find our peaceful selves in the next world rather than this one God apparently created for humans to enjoy?
We are not of this world? Then why create us to be in it?

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning fhansen,

Hmmm. The word “allow” puts the choice to heaven back in God’s hands, but this runs contrary to the idea that hell is a chosen state:

Hmmm-interesting you would say that since Catholic teaching centers on God allowing but not causing evil. Our choices are allowed rather than determined. Free will involves our ability to oppose God’s will.

 

[fhansen]

This makes me think, why would God allow two humans to make a choice for the rest of the human race, knowing there would be billions of humans in the world in the future, most I would say living quite well with each other, not in the ideal Catholic way, but at least not killing each other, but rather accepting differences between each other.

God could have just made sure humans wouldn’t “eat from the wrong tree” so that they would only be good, by not placing such tree in the garden, but he gave them a choice…

Why did God place humans in a peaceful setting, telling them to fill the earth as though the whole earth should be explored, not just a garden.
And now we believe we will find our peaceful selves in the next world rather than this one God apparently created for humans to enjoy?
We are not of this world? Then why create us to be in it?

This world, post-Eden, is understood to be an exile from God, a pigsty relative to the paradise he intended and still intends for man. Here we experience-we know-both good and evil, as the two obviously coexist here. Yes, Adam turned humanity into unknowing participants in his rebellion and yet we have to ask ourselves, if we’re not to shirk our own moral responsibility and accountability, if we don’t *prefer *the rebellion, the family tradition, if we don’t prefer sin, if we don’t prefer ourselves to God IOW-and autonomy from Him. It’s not that humanity is all bad; it’s that it can and should be so much better, a state in which small and large sins simply wouldn’t exist to cause the harm they do. That’s what God both offers and challenges or draws us to: a higher state, a great love. Without the challenge, without the obligation to excel, our world remains the same, and very possibly, will grow worse yet.

This world is meant to serve as a schoolhouse, teaching us that* something* is missing, ultimately teaching us of the existence, goodness, and man’s need for, God.

 

[fhansen]

The ultimate blindness would be to deny-to hide oneself- from the reality of good and evil. To dismiss evil as an illusion, and/or to remove all human responsibility for committing it. Man can never achieve any real kind of holiness or perfection unless he recognizes his imperfections and is challenged to overcome them. He must challenge himself to overcome them.

Just as temptations may arise from outside of ourselves, so must the challenge for holiness come from outside-from one holier than ourselves, otherwise we’d probably remain or even wallow in our assumption that we’re perfect already, an assumption rarely admitted to but universally made and acted upon IMO, consciously or not, regardless of how relatively imperfect we may be BTW.

We need to be shaken out of our complacency, out of the structures and mentality that support and hold sin in place. Jesus didn’t come and die for saints; He came and died while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:8). Sin is more than an otherwise innocent, unguarded slip of the tongue: a white lie or a bit of gossip; it is, in the first place, before all that, our lack of communion-lack of union- with God, a state so naturally pure in it’s full realization that white lies and gossip, let alone beheadings, wouldn’t even occur to the subjects involved, and would all be held as gross anomalies if such behavior were ever contemplated.

God wants more, much more, for us than what we have now. And evil certainly isn’t a part of that in the end. But our choices, due to our awareness of our responsibility to make the right ones, is part of that process-of a participation in the perfecting of ourselves and ultimately of God’s universe as He patiently works in us to bring about that end. Man’s *will *has always been the problem-and the prize.

 

[Vico]

This makes me think, why would God allow two humans to make a choice for the rest of the human race, knowing there would be billions of humans in the world in the future, most I would say living quite well with each other, not in the ideal Catholic way, but at least not killing each other, but rather accepting differences between each other.

God could have just made sure humans wouldn’t “eat from the wrong tree” so that they would only be good, by not placing such tree in the garden, but he gave them a choice…

Why did God place humans in a peaceful setting, telling them to fill the earth as though the whole earth should be explored, not just a garden.
And now we believe we will find our peaceful selves in the next world rather than this one God apparently created for humans to enjoy?
We are not of this world? Then why create us to be in it?

To not give us free will would make us like the animals and unlike the angels. We would not be created in the image and the likeness of God. Even angels do not have what humans have in that respect.

St. John Chrysostom wrote on Homily 3 on Colossians:

But if a creature: how is He the Image of the Creator? For neither is a horse the image of a man. If the Image mean not exact likeness to the Invisible, what hinders the Angels also from being His Image? For they too are invisible; but not to one another: but the soul is invisible: but because it is invisible, it is simply on that account an image, and not in such sort as he and angels are images.

newadvent.com/fathers/230303.htm

 

[joseie]

The basic problem while dealing with original sin or other sins is that we are taught that we are all sinned useless people worthy of nothing before God etc.and that during the whole of our life we should live under guilty conscience without any self respect.It is time to come out from this artificially created situarion. O.k.we have sinned here and there but not committed any serious sins like killing ,adultery ,denying God etc. We have regretted for the same and God is surely not much bothered about such trivial matters. Only thing is that we should be confident that a merciful God is always there ready to forgive us in case we have committed sins maily because of situations beyond our control .Be happy and don’t live under guilty conscience in this life keeping in mind that it is a rare opportunity given to us by God and that you will never get the type of life as here even in heaven.

 

[fhansen]

The basic problem while dealing with original sin or other sins is that we are taught that we are all sinned useless people worthy of nothing before God etc.and that during the whole of our life we should live under guilty conscience without any self respect.

This is quite opposed to CATHOLIC teaching.

 

[OneSheep]

Hmmm-interesting you would say that since Catholic teaching centers on God allowing but not causing evil. Our choices are allowed rather than determined. Free will involves our ability to oppose God’s will.

Good Morning!

I was referring to this line:

“good is the only flavor allowed in”

That line does not speak of freedom to choose, it is a non-allowance. The way I see it, “goodness” is a flavor that can be reliably applied to all humanity, regardless of our behaviors. I know, it renders “good” rather meaningless, but that is okay; I think it is more suitable to describe people as beautiful, and that God sees and knows our beauty. He loves us without limit.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable and makes sense that God would not allow people to join Him who would rather not, i.e. a human choice made for the sake of avoiding a suffering. After all, we are made in His image, and we tend to be rather protective. I don’t have this image of God, people, or heaven, but it makes sense. I don’t know if this is what you are describing.

 

[OneSheep]

The basic problem while dealing with original sin or other sins is that we are taught that we are all sinned useless people worthy of nothing before God etc.and that during the whole of our life we should live under guilty conscience without any self respect.It is time to come out from this artificially created situarion. O.k.we have sinned here and there but not committed any serious sins like killing ,adultery ,denying God etc. We have regretted for the same and God is surely not much bothered about such trivial matters. Only thing is that we should be confident that a merciful God is always there ready to forgive us in case we have committed sins maily because of situations beyond our control .Be happy and don’t live under guilty conscience in this life keeping in mind that it is a rare opportunity given to us by God and that you will never get the type of life as here even in heaven.

Hi joseie,

I agree with fhansen, that is, we are not taught that we are useless people in any way, nor are we to live with a guilty conscience with no self-respect. We are taught to forgive, and self-forgiveness is very important. Ideally, self-forgiveness is part of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Indeed, our own clinging to self-condemnation is something worth confessing! So, the end of your paragraph, “be happy and don’t live under a guilty conscience” is more in line with Christianity.

BTW: The Sister working at our parish is from India, so I have an appreciation for the struggles of Christians in your land. I also know of the firm dedication people there have to their faith. God bless you and your brethren.

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning!

I was referring to this line:

“good is the only flavor allowed in”

That line does not speak of freedom to choose, it is a non-allowance. The way I see it, “goodness” is a flavor that can be reliably applied to all humanity, regardless of our behaviors. I know, it renders “good” rather meaningless, but that is okay; I think it is more suitable to describe people as beautiful, and that God sees and knows our beauty. He loves us without limit.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable and makes sense that God would not allow people to join Him who would rather not, i.e. a human choice made for the sake of avoiding a suffering. After all, we are made in His image, and we tend to be rather protective. I don’t have this image of God, people, or heaven, but it makes sense. I don’t know if this is what you are describing.

Well, good and evil are realities, even if evil is understood to be a negation of good. All of creation, including humans, are created good. But sin, a disorder in God’s good creation, is the result of a choice in the end. Good, not sin/evil, is the “only flavor” that will be allowed into the immediate presence of God. God, naturally, is opposed to evil. He doesn’t initiate or condone child torture, for example. His purpose isn’t to ignore it but rather to, patiently, over time, eradicate it, to restore justice to His universe, where love, His nature, will reign and prevail. This entails change in human hearts, with an openness on our part to that change, to the need for a supernatural transformation, to our need for God.

He has every right to demand that, to obligate us to it, even as He patiently works to achieve it in us.

 

[simpleas]

This world, post-Eden, is understood to be an exile from God, a pigsty relative to the paradise he intended and still intends for man. Here we experience-we know-both good and evil, as the two obviously coexist here. Yes, Adam turned humanity into unknowing participants in his rebellion and yet we have to ask ourselves, if we’re not to shirk our own moral responsibility and accountability, if we don’t *prefer *the rebellion, the family tradition, if we don’t prefer sin, if we don’t prefer ourselves to God IOW-and autonomy from Him. It’s not that humanity is all bad; it’s that it can and should be so much better, a state in which small and large sins simply wouldn’t exist to cause the harm they do. That’s what God both offers and challenges or draws us to: a higher state, a great love. Without the challenge, without the obligation to excel, our world remains the same, and very possibly, will grow worse yet.

This world is meant to serve as a schoolhouse, teaching us that* something* is missing, ultimately teaching us of the existence, goodness, and man’s need for, God.

I have never thought of the world as a pigsty…

I know there may be places in this world that are so poor, people living in unbelievable places that are called a home, but the actual world God created is most beautiful.

So we don’t get a choice unlike Adam and Eve did. We can only believe we are born sinners from the start because we inherit Adam and Eve’s sinful nature.

 

[simpleas]

To not give us free will would make us like the animals and unlike the angels. We would not be created in the image and the likeness of God. Even angels do not have what humans have in that respect.

St. John Chrysostom wrote on Homily 3 on Colossians:

But if a creature: how is He the Image of the Creator? For neither is a horse the image of a man. If the Image mean not exact likeness to the Invisible, what hinders the Angels also from being His Image? For they too are invisible; but not to one another: but the soul is invisible: but because it is invisible, it is simply on that account an image, and not in such sort as he and angels are images.

newadvent.com/fathers/230303.htm

But God didn’t give us freewill, he gave it first to Adam and Eve allowing them to use it to make a choice for all humanity, and they made the wrong choice. So we don’t get the same choice as they did. They had freedom from sin, we are born as sinners and then have to struggle our way through life trying to be perfect. Exercising our ‘freewill’ by the choices we make.

 

[fhansen]

I have never thought of the world as a pigsty…

I know there may be places in this world that are so poor, people living in unbelievable places that are called a home, but the actual world God created is most beautiful.

So we don’t get a choice unlike Adam and Eve did. We can only believe we are born sinners from the start because we inherit Adam and Eve’s sinful nature.

“a pigsty relative to the paradise he intended”, where both good and evil “coexist”. I don’t know about you but, IMO, beheadings, torture, cancer, war, genocide, terrorism, etc, will not occur in heaven-and could be aptly described as parts of a pigsty nature of this world. This is why the Church calls our sojourn here an “exile” from God/paradise.

As our understanding of God and His ultimate intentions for man grows, along with our aversion to sin, our definition for what would constitute paradise/heaven grows as well.

 

[simpleas]

“a pigsty relative to the paradise he intended”, where both good and evil “coexist”. I don’t know about you but, IMO, beheadings, torture, cancer, war, genocide, terrorism, etc, will not occur in heaven-and could be aptly described as parts of a pigsty nature of this world. This is why the Church calls our sojourn here an “exile” from God/paradise.

As our understanding of God and His ultimate intentions for man grows, along with our aversion to sin, our definition for what would constitute paradise/heaven grows as well.

I think it’s because you are describing humans and what they can do to each other, and when thinking of this world I’m including all nature not just human nature.

I’ve never really understood God creating humans to live on this earth and our church telling us we aren’t of the earth. I get we don’t live in a paradise.

I think we are supposed to make a ‘heaven’ on earth though. Hard to do with such hatred towards ourselves.

 

[Vico]

I think it’s because you are describing humans and what they can do to each other, and when thinking of this world I’m including all nature not just human nature.

I’ve never really understood God creating humans to live on this earth and our church telling us we aren’t of the earth. I get we don’t live in a paradise.

I think we are supposed to make a ‘heaven’ on earth though. Hard to do with such hatred towards ourselves.

Catechism:

VI. THE HOPE OF THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH

1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed:

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631
1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."632 It will be the definitive realization of God’s plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."633

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.634 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."635

1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament."636 Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, “the holy city” of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."637 She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community.638 The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.639

631 LG 48; Cf. Acts 3:21; Eph 1:10; Col 1:20; 2 Pet 3:10-13.
632 2 Pet 3:13; Cf. Rev 21:1.
633 Eph 1:10.
634 Cf. Rev 21:5.
635 Rev 21:4.
636 Cf. LG 1.
637 Rev 21:2,9.
638 Cf. Rev 21:27.
639 Rom 8:19-23.​

 

[OneSheep]

Well, good and evil are realities, even if evil is understood to be a negation of good. All of creation, including humans, are created good.

My point exactly. In addition, since there is only one creator, we remain the same “flavor”.

Again, in my view, the choices we make after being created do not change this, bad choices only reflect an absence of awareness, or instances of blindness. This brings us back to an ultimate human choice, correct? Absent awareness and/or under the limitation of blindness, a human can make a bad choice.

The ultimate blindness would be to deny-to hide oneself- from the reality of good and evil. To dismiss evil as an illusion, and/or to remove all human responsibility for committing it.

I agree, to a point. When a human sees an evil occurrence, he describes it as “evil”, harmful occurrence. Coupled with the objective observation of harm is usually the emotional expression of resentment. However, to look upon the evildoer and to express the same resentment “he is evil” is our natural judgment of the person who does evil, and the means to overcome such condemnation is forgiveness. Once I understand and forgive, I no longer resent the person, so the label “evil” no longer applies. In my view, use of the word “evil” to describe a person is an expression of the illusion I have due to my resentment.

All people are imputable/responsible for everything they do. There is no such thing as a forced choice.

Man can never achieve any real kind of holiness or perfection unless he recognizes his imperfections and is challenged to overcome them. He must challenge himself to overcome them.

Just as temptations may arise from outside of ourselves, so must the challenge for holiness come from outside-from one holier than ourselves, otherwise we’d probably remain or even wallow in our assumption that we’re perfect already, an assumption rarely admitted to but universally made and acted upon IMO, consciously or not, regardless of how relatively imperfect we may be BTW.

We need to be shaken out of our complacency, out of the structures and mentality that support and hold sin in place. Jesus didn’t come and die for saints; He came and died while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:8). Sin is more than an otherwise innocent, unguarded slip of the tongue: a white lie or a bit of gossip; it is, in the first place, before all that, our lack of communion-lack of union- with God, a state so naturally pure in it’s full realization that white lies and gossip, let alone beheadings, wouldn’t even occur to the subjects involved, and would all be held as gross anomalies if such behavior were ever contemplated.

God wants more, much more, for us than what we have now. And evil certainly isn’t a part of that in the end. But our choices, due to our awareness of our responsibility to make the right ones, is part of that process-of a participation in the perfecting of ourselves and ultimately of God’s universe as He patiently works in us to bring about that end. Man’s *will *has always been the problem-and the prize.

I keep in mind that a person who beheads another is thinking that the other is evil or worthless in some way. Therefore, an effort to promote the Kingdom while saying that those who do evil are evil in themselves only continues a vicious cycle. When we understand and forgive, the cycle ends, and the labels disappear.

 

[BobCatholic]

Yes, it can be seen that when desire trumps conscience that such is a “bug”, but I can make the case that God intended this “bug” for our own benefit. Have you considered this possibility?

When I say “bug” I mean an imperfection that leads people to sin. Concupiscence.

This bug makes it easy to sin but hard to be holy.

What is the message sent when it is easy to fail but hard to succeed, and how this relates to whether God wants people?

It tells me God’s grace is fragile like crystal glassware. One mistake, SMASH! CRASH! and it is gone.

How does God really want me if he makes it horrifically difficult to get to him, but ridiculously easy to sin and fail him and go away from him?

Is it not natural for a wolf to put its puppies first, and when necessary the well-being of its pack? You would not find our own nature as more self-destructive, would you, than that of wolves?

Christ says the self is evil. That’s why we must “give up the self” to follow him.

To me, the “supernatural” comes into play when we start forgiving our enemies unconditionally or praying for the well-being of those who persecute us. We have to drive against our nature to do these things.

What Christ talks about is far more than this.

He asks the rich young ruler to sell everything and give it to the poor. He does not want us to have any temporal pleasures on earth, life is just the cross.

If a person does not believe that others in the world do not exist, he is simply insane, correct?

OK, how about “other people exist but they have no needs, wants, desires or any demand on me whatsoever. If they do, they’re evil and need to be punished.”

Do you notice a pattern in your thoughts and words? We all have patterns:

Yes. I’m stuck and God does not want to help.

The video is based on several false things. “Christianity without religion” defines “religion” of something that is not religion, but hates rules of any kind.

He praises Ekhart Toley (sp?) who is a new age guru type who pushes the false and destructive new age stuff (see Catholic Answers archived shows about this - in the “new age” subjects) - this one pushes narcissism to the extreme.

Look, I just want to Love God. But HOW can I love God when he refuses to talk to me, when he won’t help me with the basic things I need in life?

I ask for help with my employment situation, so therefore it must be something evil so he says no.

I ask for my son to be healed and he says no. Clearly that must be evil.

90% of the time I pray for other’s needs, but when I dare to ask for things on my own, God says no and thinks the basic things I ask for are evil. God’s will is capricious and arbitrary.