Original Sin

[OneSheep]

Everything comes from God. But why, then, do you think Jesus would say, “Apart from Me you can do nothing” in John 15:5 or “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” in Matt 19:26 if not for the possibility of man’s being apart from God? Our faith is nothing if not about the reconciling of man with God-after being exiled from Him, lost sheep in need of the Shepard.

Well, the verse in John confirms what I wrote. As far as “with God, all things are possible” He was referring to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Since, with God, all things are possible, and God loves us unconditionally, then it follows that we remain with God.

 

[grannymh]

Well, the verse in John confirms what I wrote. As far as “with God, all things are possible” He was referring to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. Since, with God, all things are possible, and God loves us unconditionally, then it follows that we remain with God.

The only person who does not have their own conditions (that is acting unconditionally) is someone who is not a created material being. I did check this morning …humans still have a created material decomposing anatomy which automatically means that there are some conditions governing their lives. Eating is one example of a human condition.

It is fascinating how Catholicism refers to the Real Presence of Jesus under the species of bread and wine as “food”. John 6: 52-59. Since humans are *both *material and spiritual in one nature, it follows that our soul needs the life of God’s Sanctifying Grace. When we study God’s interaction with the real Adam before he committed the real Original Sin, we learn the conditional positive side of Genesis 2: 15-17.

In addition, we learn Adam’s natural condition which is seen in his necessary free decision in response to Genesis 2: 15-17. If Adam were not conditional, that is not having the condition of a created creature, then Adam would be God
which is a no-no in Catholic teaching.

Tiny thought. In John 15: 5, we view the difference between the vine and the branches. This is the same difference which we find in the real explanation of Original Sin.

 

[OneSheep]

No, God creates a being that He plans to form-the divine potter molding His clay;.Theosis is His actual goal for us.

We agree on this. Formation does not depend on a “fall” though. Formation does not assume unworthiness.

This only tells me that morality is relative-* in a fallen world.*

Hmmm. Morality is not relative, only people see morality in different ways. Morality depends on perception, that is the realistic approach, even though there is a true morality. Again, this does not depend on having fallen. What it means is that awareness is called for. Awareness leads to empathy leads to owned morality.

Yes, but that doesn’t render it sinless, i.e. not outside the will of God.

It depends on the analysis. Sin is sin, but the possibility of sin is not outside the will of God, because God gave free will to beings that are ignorant and capable of blindness. To me, God ultimately wants us to see the goodness in everyone, but He created us with a conscience that tells us that certain people and parts of ourselves are bad when we misbehave.

Of course God doesn’t want us to sin. But one of the reasons for human sin is that our empathy is blocked in the workings of the conscience hardware that God gave us. To me, God let us kill His son so that we can learn to forgive, to counteract this aspect of our conscience. If we see sin, and our blaming mind puts the sinner in a negative light, then our calling is to forgive.

We can live with our conscience intact, guiding our behaviors, but keep it in check by forgiving when we are aware of the negative perception. The people who crucified Jesus were following their consciences, but the problem with the conscience is that it is always wrong about one thing: that another person is evil or worthless. This misperception serves a purpose for children and those who have undeveloped empathy, but is a hindrance for adults who have normal empathy. Hitler was not self-disciplined to forgive. He was blinded by the workings of his conscience.

 

[grannymh]

Conscience does not replace our spiritual soul of intellect and will.

 

[OneSheep]

If St Paul said nothing can separate us from the love of God, why does our church tell us that we do separate ourselves from God each time we choose to sin

Good question. The way I look at it, God doesn’t like it when we sin, but understands. “separation” works for some people, not me.

Do we only condemn ourselves if we refuse to confess to God?

I’m not sure I understand the question… Are you asking if God condemns us for refusing to confess our sins?

 

[OneSheep]

Conscience does not replace our spiritual soul of intellect and will.

Our spiritual soul of intellect and will develops with experience doesn’t it grannymh? So, while our intellect (especially empathy) and will are developing, I think the conscience is there as a gift, guiding our behavior.

But yes, I agree, Jesus calls on our will! The will is the “I” part of who we are. The rest, conscience and all, is fairly mechanical.

Oh, and as far as the “vine and the branches”, isn’t that a metaphor for doing God’s will? He was talking to the apostles, and the bottom line was to bear fruit.

So, we have to consider the fruits of what we are doing. Are we building awareness? Are we healing the sick, those who are troubled? The “pruning” part of the analogy can be taken too far, perhaps.

 

[simpleas]

Good question. The way I look at it, God doesn’t like it when we sin, but understands. “separation” works for some people, not me.

I’m not sure I understand the question… Are you asking if God condemns us for refusing to confess our sins?

I’m asking if we condemn ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge our sins in the presence of God at confession. As you say God loves unconditionally so he wouldn’t condemn us, but we could condemn ourselves…we are our own worse ememy sometimes

 

[grannymh]

Our spiritual soul of intellect and will develops with experience doesn’t it grannymh?

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer; however, I am not blind to the popular idea of a *cultural *developing sense of relative evil. It should be noted that the Catholic Church does not replace Divine Revelation with popular opposing ideas.

So, while our intellect (especially empathy) and will are developing, I think the conscience is there as a gift, guiding our behavior.

Perhaps this is a good place to address the issue that the soul is spiritual and does not develop like our material anatomy or from our material anatomy. The Catholic Church maintains that the spiritual soul, the image of God, is created by God, individually at human conception. It is because of the spiritual soul that the body made of matter (material) becomes a living human person. (CCC 365-366) As for the conscience offering guidance for human behavior, I think that there is more to that story. This is just a gentle suggestion. A good thing would be to review the excellent previous posts on conscience according to Catholic teaching.

But yes, I agree, Jesus calls on our will! The will is the “I” part of who we are. The rest, conscience and all, is fairly mechanical.

I cannot comment because somehow this reminds me of the time when I was nailed for being a Cartesian dualist.

Oh, and as far as the “vine and the branches”, isn’t that a metaphor for doing God’s will? He was talking to the apostles, and the bottom line was to bear fruit.

One great thing about the Catholic Church is that it does not limit one verse to one metaphorical teaching. Please note that this does not give people the power to create Divine Revelation.

So, we have to consider the fruits of what we are doing. Are we building awareness? Are we healing the sick, those who are troubled? The “pruning” part of the analogy can be taken too far, perhaps.

In reality, there are lots of fruits of what we are doing – starting with Adam. Understanding his encounter with a “fruit” either metaphoric or an organic eatable fruit is valuable when we look at the condition of our own human nature.

 

[grannymh]

I’m asking if we condemn ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge our sins in the presence of God at confession. As you say God loves unconditionally so he wouldn’t condemn us, but we could condemn ourselves…we are our own worse ememy sometimes

In my humble observation, first, a substantial answer needs to be given to your previous question “If the creation story is a metaphor for man condemning himself, how do you know what way God wanted man to live his life?” But then there is a question as to what would a man be condemning himself to. I am getting the impression that man can neither reason nor choose because of blindness. But if man’s mind is blind, how would he know what condemning would mean?

By removing the truth of Original Sin, Adam is removed. By removing Adam, the necessity of a Divine Reconciler is removed. Eventually, our spirituality is lost in the brambles of a materialistic environment.

Thank heaven that the Catholic Church remains true to Divine Revelation. “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” (CCC 389)

 

[OneSheep]

I’m asking if we condemn ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge our sins in the presence of God at confession. As you say God loves unconditionally so he wouldn’t condemn us, but we could condemn ourselves…we are our own worse ememy sometimes

True, we can be our own worst enemy. We are our own enemy out of ignorance and blindness, which I have said (ad nauseum) is the same for all sin. So, what is the consequence of our self-condemnation? Well, the consequence is in the act itself. We suffer, we feel lousy. Do we place ourselves in a sort of hell? I think so. But this again is all from our own ignorance and blindness, which God forgives.

And really, that sort of hell, that suffering, has its purpose. Sometimes it takes a 2X4 across the head for me to learn anything!

 

[OneSheep]

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer; however, I am not blind to the popular idea of a *cultural *developing sense of relative evil. It should be noted that the Catholic Church does not replace Divine Revelation with popular opposing ideas.

And it shouldn’t (replace them, that is). At least not until a lot of time has passed to put the popular ideas to the test. The idea of the earth revolving around the sun is an example of church thinking being replaced by “popular” ideas. Revelation, again, comes from nature as well as scripture.

I think I may have misinterpreted your use of “spiritual soul of intellect” and went straight to intellect. I prefer “awareness” as Fr. Anthony DeMello used. Awareness does evolve over the ages, as I stated before, because revelation also comes from the study of creation, as Aquinas noted. But I was referring to the more individual type of awareness. We grow in empathy. Is our soul gaining “intellect” or is our mind? I leave those kind of questions to the philosophers and theologians. It’s like, how does one separate the soul and the mind, and what is the difference once we make a conclusion? Separating the conscience from both soul and mind is a much more worthwhile endeavor. Conscience is more of a body thing…

Perhaps this is a good place to address the issue that the soul is spiritual and does not develop like our material anatomy or from our material anatomy. The Catholic Church maintains that the spiritual soul, the image of God, is created by God, individually at human conception. It is because of the spiritual soul that the body made of matter (material) becomes a living human person. (CCC 365-366) As for the conscience offering guidance for human behavior, I think that there is more to that story. This is just a gentle suggestion. A good thing would be to review the excellent previous posts on conscience according to Catholic teaching

I have read the posts referring to the CCC. Too many contradictions to address at once. I tackled the first one and quit. I agree with the rest of this paragraph above, though. The soul is a mystery, a wonder.

I cannot comment because somehow this reminds me of the time when I was nailed for being a Cartesian dualist.

There is nothing wrong with being a Cartesian dualist. It makes sense, doesn’t it? I just read a book called Proof of Heaven written by a doctor who had an extensive near-death experience. He went somewhere, but his body was still in intensive care. Great read. You won’t find me nailing.

One great thing about the Catholic Church is that it does not limit one verse to one metaphorical teaching. Please note that this does not give people the power to create Divine Revelation.

In reality, there are lots of fruits of what we are doing – starting with Adam. Understanding his encounter with a “fruit” either metaphoric or an organic eatable fruit is valuable when we look at the condition of our own human nature.

True, but Jesus was speaking to the apostles; it is best to apply the vine-and-branches parable in context.

And what about the condition of human nature? It is “good”, as God made us, but I don’t think it changes much. What do you say about the condition of our nature? You have said we are “worthy”. But is the human a thing of beauty? Many people think the world would be better off without us, but this reflects a devaluation of our existence. I think that thinking comes from condemnation of humans (conscience in gear) for environmnetal destruction.

Some scientists show evidence of human evolution over the past few millenia, showing that our head size is getting smaller, some speculating that our “domestication” is somehow leading to smaller craniums. They have a long way to go before they can come up with anything close to theory, though…

However, what about the condition of human awareness? There, now, is some tangible progress. Surely we have a long way to go, but we are definitely moving in a positive direction! Experience and life are educating our will in a way like never before! It gives me hope.

My reading of cognitive and behavioral sciences shows me that “conscience” is a bit more extensive than the Church’s definition. For example, I have concluded that humans truly have a drive to punish what we see as wrongdoing. Empathy is an inhibitor of such punishment, so that is one reason why it becomes important that condemnation blinds us. In order for this conscience to work, we have to be able to punish one another. All of us overdo this punishing sometimes, and it is because of the unchecked working of the conscience.

I don’t know how clear this all is. It is late, and I am exhausted.

 

[scorpio1990]

I’ve come to think of it in evolutionary terms.

Man evolved from simpler life forms to have a higher functioning brain. That higher functioning brain however rests on the more primitive parts of the brain. Simple drives like the need to eat, mate, really just survive are found here. What God did is when man reached the point he needed to (evolutionary speaking) God gave the higher function (both biology and spiritually speaking) to help us rise above our baser instincts. And when we don’t, when we go down to survival mode, only caring about ourselves and things directly related to us. This is what, I believe, sin is in a nut shell. Doing things and not caring how it will negatively affects others. But it is also what happens when one is in a state of nature. Because nature has no morality, no higher purpose to strive towards. And the lack of a fully functioning brain can make what would be a major sin not a sin at all because they didn’t know better. Like a person being found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

For example. You see a shark eat her own young that she just gave birth to, but you don’t say its sin. Why? Because she’s just an animals she doesn’t know any better; its just nature. A nasty side of it, but nature nonetheless. Meanwhile you see a human doing the same thing. There are two explanations: she’s insane and hasn’t committed a sin because her mental state (an either temporary or permanent lack of a fully operating cerebral cortex) has made her slide into a state of nature. Or she knows better and just doesn’t care; in this case many would say she has committed a sin.

My two cents. What do you think?

 

[grannymh]

Unconditionally forgiveness eliminates

the need for sorrow, repentance, contrition, restitution, and of course, all individual responsibility for all actions. Unconditionally forgiveness throws out any need for regular adherence to the Ten Commandments.

In my old neighborhood, there was a saying that Catholics can do anything and everything (get away with murder) as long as it was done before Saturday’s confession. Sunday was the day for playing golf or for enjoying the jokes about playing golf. Then Monday was back to business – even if it were the devil’s business because even if one were too drunk for the Saturday ritual, unconditionally forgiveness kicked in.

Ignoring the fact of sin’s consequences by skipping the reality of Adam…
And substituting weird meanings of human nature…
Can be so much fun because unconditionally forgiveness teaches that one’s own pleasure is the rule.

As for conscience, unconditionally forgiveness encourages one to design one’s own version which can be good or bad. When the rubber meets the road, good or bad is neutral because of unconditionally forgiveness.

 

[grannymh]

I’ve come to think of it in evolutionary terms.

Man evolved from simpler life forms to have a higher functioning brain. That higher functioning brain however rests on the more primitive parts of the brain. Simple drives like the need to eat, mate, really just survive are found here. What God did is when man reached the point he needed to (evolutionary speaking) God gave the higher function (both biology and spiritually speaking) to help us rise above our baser instincts. And when we don’t, when we go down to survival mode, only caring about ourselves and things directly related to us. This is what, I believe, sin is in a nut shell. Doing things and not caring how it will negatively affects others. But it is also what happens when one is in a state of nature. Because nature has no morality, no higher purpose to strive towards. And the lack of a fully functioning brain can make what would be a major sin not a sin at all because they didn’t know better. Like a person being found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

For example. You see a shark eat her own young that she just gave birth to, but you don’t say its sin. Why? Because she’s just an animals she doesn’t know any better; its just nature. A nasty side of it, but nature nonetheless. Meanwhile you see a human doing the same thing. There are two explanations: she’s insane and hasn’t committed a sin because her mental state (an either temporary or permanent lack of a fully operating cerebral cortex) has made her slide into a state of nature. Or she knows better and just doesn’t care; in this case many would say she has committed a sin.

My two cents. What do you think?

Welcome to CAF.

:twocents:
Here are some additional thoughts about the uniqueness of our single nature. It is because of human nature that humans operate differently from other creatures. Human nature is the unique unification of the spiritual world of eternal life and the material world of decomposing anatomies. It is God Who calls us to balance the spiritual and the material so that we can share in His life (Sanctifying Grace). The reality is that God is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist so that we are nourished with God’s grace – becoming strong and faithful to our goal of being with God in joy eternal. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is there to pick us up when we fail and then the Sacrament gives us graces for the future. Jesus understands the reality of our lives; that is why He is called the Good Shepherd.

 

[OneSheep]

I’ve come to think of it in evolutionary terms.

Man evolved from simpler life forms to have a higher functioning brain. That higher functioning brain however rests on the more primitive parts of the brain. Simple drives like the need to eat, mate, really just survive are found here. What God did is when man reached the point he needed to (evolutionary speaking) God gave the higher function (both biology and spiritually speaking) to help us rise above our baser instincts. And when we don’t, when we go down to survival mode, only caring about ourselves and things directly related to us. This is what, I believe, sin is in a nut shell. Doing things and not caring how it will negatively affects others. But it is also what happens when one is in a state of nature. Because nature has no morality, no higher purpose to strive towards. And the lack of a fully functioning brain can make what would be a major sin not a sin at all because they didn’t know better. Like a person being found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

For example. You see a shark eat her own young that she just gave birth to, but you don’t say its sin. Why? Because she’s just an animals she doesn’t know any better; its just nature. A nasty side of it, but nature nonetheless. Meanwhile you see a human doing the same thing. There are two explanations: she’s insane and hasn’t committed a sin because her mental state (an either temporary or permanent lack of a fully operating cerebral cortex) has made her slide into a state of nature. Or she knows better and just doesn’t care; in this case many would say she has committed a sin.

My two cents. What do you think?

You are thinking pretty much along the same lines that I am. The only part I think never happens is “she knows better but just doesn’t care” to some degree. When people do these things, at the moment they don’t know better. When we hurt people, our empathy has either never developed, or is temporarily blocked.

I will use your example as a case in point. When we see such an act she did, we (with normal consciences) immediately condemn the act and the person. Our brain says “she is a monster”. We immediately write off her value. Our brains do not immediately go to the place of “why did she do that?” in an inquisitive non-judgmental way, because our conscience is much faster, reacting violently. Our conscience blocks the empathy path. It is a moral reaction, and we are compelled to punish quickly. If our empathy was not blocked, our punishment drive would be inhibited, which would oppose the function of our conscience in the first place. Our individual consciences serve to moderate misbehaviors in a tribal group, which is the circumstances under which our conscience evolved.

Women, every day, choose to end the lives of their children (abortion). Why? It could be that the woman has been raped, and condemns the presence of the child (empathy blocked). It could be that she is ignorant of the value of the child, that the child is just a “thing”. It could be that she has great desire for freedom from the prospect of raising a child, and is even in despair over her desire. Desire also blinds us, it can block empathy. Blindness and/or ignorance are always present when people sin.

And, by the way, the shark eating some of her young has been evolutionarily selected, right? There must be some advantage to this, otherwise extinction would have happened long ago. Sharks have been around a lot longer than we have.

 

[OneSheep]

Unconditionally forgiveness eliminates

the need for sorrow, repentance, contrition, restitution, and of course, all individual responsibility for all actions. Unconditionally forgiveness throws out any need for regular adherence to the Ten Commandments.

You have a point there. That is why it is a really good thing that we have consciences. Our consciences do not love us unconditionally. When we mess up, we beat ourselves up, and others will fill in if we don’t. Conditional forgiveness is the way of human nature. Conditional forgiveness motivates behavior, manipulating us, coercing us. That is the way the conscience is supposed to work.

But what did Jesus show us? God is deeper than our conscience. Underlying our conscience is a presence, a transcending presence, that unconditionally forgives, just as Jesus did from the cross! Are you worried about Jesus forgiving the unrepentant crowd? Jesus wasn’t. I think Jesus did not worry about it because our consciences are still there to guide moderate our behaviors. And the only way to know God’s unconditional love and forgiveness is to do just that, we have to unconditionally love and forgive everyone, including ourselves. If people have not done such forgiveness, we can tell them that God loves them unconditionally until we are blue in the face, and they won’t believe us. Grannymh, I don’t know if you have taken the time, reflection, and prayer to forgive everyone you have ever held anything against. Everyone of normal conscience condemns Hitler, Judas, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, child molesters, etc. etc. Our calling is to forgive them, all of them, including ourselves. If you haven’t done this, it is going to be very difficult to understand what I am saying.

In my old neighborhood, there was a saying that Catholics can do anything and everything (get away with murder) as long as it was done before Saturday’s confession. Sunday was the day for playing golf or for enjoying the jokes about playing golf. Then Monday was back to business – even if it were the devil’s business because even if one were too drunk for the Saturday ritual, unconditionally forgiveness kicked in.

Ignoring the fact of sin’s consequences by skipping the reality of Adam…
And substituting weird meanings of human nature…
Can be so much fun because unconditionally forgiveness teaches that one’s own pleasure is the rule.

As for conscience, unconditionally forgiveness encourages one to design one’s own version which can be good or bad. When the rubber meets the road, good or bad is neutral because of unconditionally forgiveness.

Let me put it this way. If you did not have to worry about being punished in some way, either by society, or by your own conscience, would you hurt people? If your empathy has developed normally, your answer would be no. Your love is the guide. I would be willing to bet your answer is no. You obviously have great love for people.

If a person’s answer is yes, then the conscience is still very necessary, as it is with children and people who want to “get away with murder”. If this is the case, though, the person will be equating God and conscience anyway. Unconditional forgiveness would not make any sense.

Murder requires an unforgiving mindset. When we don’t forgive, we will not know a God who forgives.

 

[BobCatholic]

My Mother tried to focus on the future when she would be with Jesus in eternal joy. In the meantime, she would be a bleeding lamb in the arms of the Good Shepherd.

I wish I felt I was in his arms.

I see it like Christ only wants to share his suffering servant human side but not his totally awesome Glorious Divine side with me, while on this planet.

 

[grannymh]

This is my personal opinion as a kind of follow up to Post 182.

In our wide world of experiences, especially off CAF, some of us have come across some form of Cartesian [extreme] dualism. One of my own experiences of Descartes’ legacy was in the form of an amazing article on animal rights written by a major advocate in England.

Even though Descartes’ extreme dualism approach to human nature is rarely mentioned by name, currently one finds a similarity in various misunderstandings of soul and body. The Cartesian extreme dualism approach to soul/body undermines Catholic teaching regarding human nature per se. In post 182, it seemed to me that somehow I was being reminded of the time when I was nailed for being a Cartesian dualist in the extreme sense – even though the general discussion within a variety of posts concerned “conscience.”

This is a sample point which needs further clarification.
“But yes, I agree, Jesus calls on our will! The will is the “I” part of who we are. The rest, conscience and all, is fairly mechanical.”

Regarding the role of “conscience”, here are too good links from Catholic teaching.

Post 143
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11249889&postcount=143

Post 147
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11249989&postcount=147

It is now time for us to seek additional information about conscience in relationship to various misleading ideas about dualism in contemporary human nature which, by the way, owes its existence to Adam and Eve pre-Original Sin and post-Original Sin.

 

[simpleas]

I wish I felt I was in his arms.

I see it like Christ only wants to share his suffering servant human side but not his totally awesome Glorious Divine side with me, while on this planet.

Christ shares his Glorious Divine side with us in the Eucharist

 

[grannymh]

I wish I felt I was in his arms.

I see it like Christ only wants to share his suffering servant human side but not his totally awesome Glorious Divine side with me, while on this planet.

At one time, the only way I could feel Christ’s totally awesome Glorious Divine side was to imagine myself holding on to the bottom of His cross. All my strength, the little I had left, was in holding on. When my imaginary picture closed, I felt that somehow I had gained a bit more strength for the struggle of the next day. It seemed that even though all I could “feel” was the wooden cross, I knew that the Glorious Christ was somehow bending down to close my arms tightly around the wood so I would not feel lost and abandoned.

To this day, I can vividly recall standing in the dark bedroom and imagining my holding tightly to a bloody cross.