Original Sin

[vames]

Sometime back I thought I recognized Cartesian [extreme] dualism. The beginning of this post is a great modern example or rather it is a great example of the Cartesian legacy which eventually led to communism and the denial of spiritual soul.

No wonder so many people are confused about Adam.,…when they are confused about conscience and perfection and intellective rational tools.

The Church teaches the unity body-spirit, saying “the human person is a being at once corporeal and spiritual” (CCC 362) and that “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed” (CCC 1778). I don’t think the Church says that reason doesn’t anything to do with the functioning of the brain (otherwise the unity body-spirit wouldn’t exist) or that conscience can’t evolve (otherwise it would be absurd to distinguish between informed and uninformed conscience, the notion of “age of reason” wouldn’t exist and the Church wouldn’t say that young people under 16 aren’t liable to her penal sanctions).

I never realized that people would separate conscience from God’s creative act in giving Adam, and subsequently Adam’s descendants, a rational spiritual soul. I should have known that “silliness” based on the fact that many, not all, Catholics consider Adam as some kind of half-human waiting to learn what is right and what is wrong – waiting to eat organic fruit with magical properties.

Before Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was no experience of evil, pain, death in their life. Everything was good in Eden. The serpent said: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. And this was the outcome: “Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man* has become like one of us, knowing good and evil*; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken”. If this isn’t learning what is right and what is wrong, then what is it?

 

[vames]

If people like you and I do not encourage people in that direction, it is not going to happen. Can you imagine a world where adults forgive unconditionally? Can you imagine a world where when someone says, “Googlians are bad people” the person is recognized as living in a cloud of resentment, and that we are not to believe the person?

I don’t see it happening in our lifetime, but I can imagine such a world, precisely because we aren’t alone with our thoughts. The realization that “Googlians are NOT bad people” (and DON’T deserve to be ostracized, enslaved, persecuted, killed) has already happened and continues to happen, as shown by our history. More and more groups of Googlians (Gentiles/Jews, Catholics/Protestants, white/black people…) have slowly learned to understand each other and abandon their resentments. Some centuries ago, capital punishment by burning at the stake was considered good, now is considered inhuman. Some decades ago, corporal punishment of children in schools was considered good, now is considered an abuse. I can see that in a group of adults who have a task and a deadline, those who resort to accusations and threats are obviously less efficient than those who gain the respect and loyalty of others by treating them with empathy.

There are people who invoke Florence, Trent and other texts as arguments that all the unbaptized go to hell, period, and accuse the Church of political correctness and laxity when she emphasizes God’s mercy. Why the emphasis on mercy? Because the Church knows that without this emphasis, we’d be tempted to think about salvation in terms of escaping punishment rather than responding to God’s love and we’d be tempted to stigmatize all those who are outside of the Catholic Church (infidels, Jews, Muslims, pagans, apostates, schismatics, the excommunicated) and treat them as already doomed, worthless, less than human. Hence, again, Benedict XVI: “The core of faith rests upon accepting being loved by God, and therefore to believe is to say Yes, not only to him, but to creation, to creatures, above all, to men, to try to see the image of God in each person and thereby to become a lover. That’s not easy, but the basic Yes, the conviction that God has created men, that he stands behind them, that they aren’t simply negative, gives love a reference point that enables it to ground hope on the basis of faith”.

On the other hand, our thirst for justice can’t be underestimated or blamed. When a dictator is overthrown or a corrupt banker goes to jail, we say “justice has been done”. The last words of an Orthodox man who suffered a lot under communist repression were that he has forgiven his tormentors and that his request for future generations, on behalf of his group, is this: “Don’t avenge us”. But if justice isn’t possible or isn’t requested here on earth, what happens with the human thirst for justice? There was a thread on CAF: “What if there were no Hell?”. I was surprised by the responses, because I had been sure that everybody would answer: “it would make no difference to me, I’m not motivated by fear of punishment or by the idea that those who do bad things are eternally punished”. Instead, many posters said that if there were no Hell, then:

1. I would have no way to discipline myself and refrain from sinning
2. Everybody else would feel free to do as much evil as they can and the world would become a chaos
3. The idea of justice would dissappear; a God who doesn’t punish criminals is not a just God
4. There’d be no Heaven either, because you can’t have one without the other (reward/punishment).

 

[fhansen]

The Church teaches the unity body-spirit, saying “the human person is a being at once corporeal and spiritual” (CCC 362) and that “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed” (CCC 1778). I don’t think the Church says that reason doesn’t anything to do with the functioning of the brain (otherwise the unity body-spirit wouldn’t exist) or that conscience can’t evolve (otherwise it would be absurd to distinguish between informed and uninformed conscience, the notion of “age of reason” wouldn’t exist and the Church wouldn’t say that young people under 16 aren’t liable to her penal sanctions).

Before Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was no experience of evil, pain, death in their life. Everything was good in Eden. The serpent said: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. And this was the outcome: “Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man* has become like one of us, knowing good and evil*; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken”. If this isn’t learning what is right and what is wrong, then what is it?

Yes, but we’re not to learn to determine right and wrong-to decide what is right and what is wrong for ourselves. Rather we’re to come to recognize what is right and wrong, by coming to acknowledge, for ourselves, the righteousness of He who alone is worthy of the role, the God who makes the rules to begin with.

 

[grannymh]

Before Adam and Eve eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there was no experience of evil, pain, death in their life. Everything was good in Eden. The serpent said: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. And this was the outcome: “Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man* has become like one of us, knowing good and evil*; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken”. If this isn’t learning what is right and what is wrong, then what is it?

Yes, before Original Sin, there was no experience of pain and death.
But, and this is important to realize, there was knowledge of evil. Important difference.

After Original Sin, Adam experienced the effects of evil on human nature. Important change.

 

[grannymh]

I would like to add: “forgive me my sin, as I forgive those who sin against me.”

Or: “Jesus, I have done as you have asked, I have forgiven all those I have hold anything against. You have opened my eyes to your infinite love and forgiveness, and I freely love everyone who has ever lived on this Earth; I have found true love by shedding all of the conditions blocking my forgiveness of others.”

Do you see the significance of these additions? Is one of these additions contrary to the CCC?

I put this question "Is one of these additions contrary to the CCC?" in bold because checking the CCC is so important when we discuss forgiveness.

In answer to the question in bold, I did check the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* and found the Catholic Sacrament of Forgiveness. What a wonderful reminder of God’s unconditional love we have in this vital Sacrament of Reconciliation!

Sin is an offense against God, a rupture of communion with Him. During His public life, Jesus forgave sins and then He imparted His own power to the apostles and subsequently to today’s priests so that we can be reconciled with God. The priest is an essential part of this Sacrament of Confession as we need to first acknowledge our sins so that we can have sorrow for them and then receive God’s mercy.

From a human point of view, disclosure of sins to God through the ministry of the priest frees us and facilitates our return to the loving arms of God. This Sacrament of Penance strengthens our resolve to change our lives. Repentance in some form gives reality to our “conversion back” to our Creator.

Through this Sacrament of essential descriptive names, we allow ourselves to be healed by Christ so that we can progress in the life of the Spirit. (CCC 1458. Small print is from St. Augustine)

Links
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[OneSheep]

I put this question "Is one of these additions contrary to the CCC?" in bold because checking the CCC is so important when we discuss forgiveness.

In answer to the question in bold, I did check the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* and found the Catholic Sacrament of Forgiveness. What a wonderful reminder of God’s unconditional love we have in this vital Sacrament of Reconciliation!

So, if we don’t go to confession, does God forgive us? Or is His forgiveness conditional upon our going to confession? If that is the case, you are not reminding us of God’s unconditional love.

I am not implying that the sacrament of reconciliation is not important. We all need, at times, to go to a priest when we are troubled with sin. The priest shows me that God has forgiven me. The priest offers a means of repentance. If I am unrepentant, my mind is closed to such forgiveness, because the unrepentant have an inability to forgive, their appetites are out of control. I explained this in an earlier post.

Catholics Notice: Find a priest you trust, and talk to him! Go, and receive the sacrament! Priests are trained in forgiveness, they do not just ring the CCC like a noisy gong. And remember, we all have a common priesthood. We are all called to forgive one another.

Sin is an offense against God, a rupture of communion with Him.

The “offense” is against an informed conscience. As I recall, you never answered my question: Does God scorn?

During His public life, Jesus forgave sins and then He imparted His own power to the apostles and subsequently to today’s priests so that we can be reconciled with God. The priest is an essential part of this Sacrament of Confession as we need to first acknowledge our sins so that we can have sorrow for them and then receive God’s mercy.

From a human point of view, disclosure of sins to God through the ministry of the priest frees us and facilitates our return to the loving arms of God. This Sacrament of Penance strengthens our resolve to change our lives. Repentance in some form gives reality to our “conversion back” to our Creator.

Forgiveness is an act of repentance when we are enslaved by resentment. Have you forgiven me, grannymh, for trespassing against your values? You will not find the answer in the CCC. Do you still resent Adam, or do you forgive him? Again, the answer will not be in a book.

I am sorry that I have brought the forgiveness discussion into public, if it makes you uncomfortable. I tried to reach you privately, and you did not respond. This is not a competition. People need to be empowered to forgive. Forgiveness is the very means by which we can find God’s unconditional love.

Catholics, forgive! Forgive atheists. Forgive Muslims. Forgive homosexuals. Forgive “institutions”. Forgive “corporations”. Forgive conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, fundamentalists, terrorists, child molesters, AIPAC, the Church hierarchy, your boss, and your annoying neighbor.

And don’t forget to forgive people who write annoying sermons on the CAF.

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t see it happening in our lifetime, but I can imagine such a world, precisely because we aren’t alone with our thoughts. The realization that “Googlians are NOT bad people” (and DON’T deserve to be ostracized, enslaved, persecuted, killed) has already happened and continues to happen, as shown by our history. More and more groups of Googlians (Gentiles/Jews, Catholics/Protestants, white/black people…) have slowly learned to understand each other and abandon their resentments. Some centuries ago, capital punishment by burning at the stake was considered good, now is considered inhuman. Some decades ago, corporal punishment of children in schools was considered good, now is considered an abuse. I can see that in a group of adults who have a task and a deadline, those who resort to accusations and threats are obviously less efficient than those who gain the respect and loyalty of others by treating them with empathy.

There are people who invoke Florence, Trent and other texts as arguments that all the unbaptized go to hell, period, and accuse the Church of political correctness and laxity when she emphasizes God’s mercy. Why the emphasis on mercy? Because the Church knows that without this emphasis, we’d be tempted to think about salvation in terms of escaping punishment rather than responding to God’s love and we’d be tempted to stigmatize all those who are outside of the Catholic Church (infidels, Jews, Muslims, pagans, apostates, schismatics, the excommunicated) and treat them as already doomed, worthless, less than human. Hence, again, Benedict XVI: “The core of faith rests upon accepting being loved by God, and therefore to believe is to say Yes, not only to him, but to creation, to creatures, above all, to men, to try to see the image of God in each person and thereby to become a lover. That’s not easy, but the basic Yes, the conviction that God has created men, that he stands behind them, that they aren’t simply negative, gives love a reference point that enables it to ground hope on the basis of faith”.

You have really opened my eyes to Benedict XVI. I never took the time to read his work. Beautiful. Amazing.

On the other hand, our thirst for justice can’t be underestimated or blamed. When a dictator is overthrown or a corrupt banker goes to jail, we say “justice has been done”. The last words of an Orthodox man who suffered a lot under communist repression were that he has forgiven his tormentors and that his request for future generations, on behalf of his group, is this: “Don’t avenge us”. But if justice isn’t possible or isn’t requested here on earth, what happens with the human thirst for justice? There was a thread on CAF: “What if there were no Hell?”. I was surprised by the responses, because I had been sure that everybody would answer: “it would make no difference to me, I’m not motivated by fear of punishment or by the idea that those who do bad things are eternally punished”. Instead, many posters said that if there were no Hell, then:

1. I would have no way to discipline myself and refrain from sinning
2. Everybody else would feel free to do as much evil as they can and the world would become a chaos
3. The idea of justice would dissappear; a God who doesn’t punish criminals is not a just God
4. There’d be no Heaven either, because you can’t have one without the other (reward/punishment).

Yes, the idea of a God who creates a Hell is one that drives many from the faith. But what if Hell was a bootcamp, where our eyes are opened to all the sin we ever did, when we were unaware of the consequences and the pain caused against God’s loved ones? If we scoffed at such pain, then our empathy had not been developed. God leads us in ways to lift all of the roadblocks to empathy, and then our eyes are opened. It is a shame that people are driven away from the Christianity because of doctrine on hell.

My favorite post on the thread was the one by Meltzerboy: “I don’t have to imagine. Judaism is not imbued with the notion of hell as other religions are.” The rest of his post reflect a dualistic outlook, but he speaks the truth, the threat of hell does not make a huge difference in human behavior. We have (thank God) consciences that punish us, and we have societies that control behaviors through laws. I heard a recent statistic on women sexually harassed and abused in the Israeli military, and their stats are not far from those of the U.S. Does that say anything? Maybe not.

Since the idea of a never-ending hell is a logical conclusion of dualism, and since dualism itself is a logical deduction based on the workings of our consciences, I argue that perhaps belief in hell is a matter of human nature. To me, for certain, dualism is a matter of human nature, for I have spoken to several atheists and “new age” types who speak of “bad people” (resentment included) just as readily as anyone else.

So, if a person says “if there were no hell, no punishment from God, people would not behave”, Then I would take their word for it! They are speaking from a position of projection (as we all are) and they need the threat of punishment in order to behave themselves, and that is their truth. We can give them time for the law to be “written in their hearts”, where love and empathy can be the guide, rather than fear.

 

[vames]

Yes, before Original Sin, there was no experience of pain and death.
But, and this is important to realize, there was knowledge of evil. Important difference.

After Original Sin, Adam experienced the effects of evil on human nature. Important change.

Does that mean that the experience of evil and suffering is in fact an *inhuman *thing, something that wasn’t meant for human beings (Adam and Eve) and doesn’t really pertain to the notion of being human, since Adam and Eve were destined for pure happiness?

I tried to point out the reason why it is so hard to be really solidary with Adam and Eve, to perceive them as* true human beings*, to make sense of the radical opposition between their condition and our condition. We are taught that God gave humans the capacity of conscience (thanks to reason) and the capacity of sin (thanks to free will). We know ourselves: we know that we have a certain capacity of reason and a certain capacity of free will. Both are limited by our own limitations as creatures: perfection is inaccessible to any creature, by the very fact that a creature is obviously inferior to her illimited Creator. But we have to believe that Adam and Eve were fully human, like you and I (i.e. limited, imperfect creatures) and at the same time we have to believe that Adam and Eve were endowed with a *perfect *conscience, a *perfect *knowledge of good and evil, a *perfect *relationship with God and a *perfect *life: they were not only immortal and immune to pain, but were created as full adults, without the most basic human experience: the endless trials and errors that transform a child into an adult, the capacity to gradually learn to derive their understanding about good, evil, suffering, sin and death from their experience.

So is it that surprising that we can’t really identify with Adam and Eve and that they seem either unreal Supermen or unreal “half-humans”? Two human beings (body and soul) that were supposed to be “like you and I” and *simultaneously *incredibly superior to any born human being. If they, who enjoyed such a perfect conscience, happiness, sanctifying grace and were so close to God, were so easily tempted and reacted so childishly, how are we supposed to understand our human condition? Is it that surprising that we either fall into despair or reject the whole story of Adam and Eve as a mere projection of our own longing for earthly happiness?

If anyone asks why there are horrific earthquakes or why the dinosaurs had to suffer and die long before the first man was created, the standard answer is: because of Adam and Eve’s sin. The Original Sin explains everything: we *deserve *earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and plagues because God was angered by Adam and Eve. Two creatures that were created perfect out of God’s love, but in fact they weren’t perfect at all and their imperfection was so offensive in the eyes of God, that He cursed ALL the creation with an enduring curse that impacted it retroactively (all creatures that preceded man) and proactively (all descendants of Adam and Eve and all that exists on earth).

 

[vames]

Yes, but we’re not to learn to determine right and wrong-to decide what is right and what is wrong for ourselves. Rather we’re to come to recognize what is right and wrong, by coming to acknowledge, for ourselves, the righteousness of He who alone is worthy of the role, the God who makes the rules to begin with.

Nobody says that man has to determine and decide what is right and what is wrong, instead of God. But how do you interpret “‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden”? Was man dangerous to God and had to be stopped, because “becoming like one of us, knowing good and evil” wasn’t meant for the human species at all? (“He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning* to guard the way* to the tree of life.”) Or maybe “knowing good and evil, like one of us” was somehow a part of God’s original plan for the human species and the only thing that went wrong was the impatience of Adam and Eve? And if Adam and Eve did already possess a perfect knowledge of good and evil despite zero experience of evil, then what is the meaning of “the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil”?

 

[fhansen]

Nobody says that man has to determine and decide what is right and what is wrong, instead of God. But how do you interpret “‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’— therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden”? Was man dangerous to God and had to be stopped, because “becoming like one of us, knowing good and evil” wasn’t meant for the human species at all? (“He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning* to guard the way* to the tree of life.”) Or maybe “knowing good and evil, like one of us” was somehow a part of God’s original plan for the human species and the only thing that went wrong was the impatience of Adam and Eve? And if Adam and Eve did already possess a perfect knowledge of good and evil despite zero experience of evil, then what is the meaning of “the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil”?

No, man had become dangerous to* himself*-and God has only man’s best interest at heart. IMO, sarcasm was behind the statement, “He has become like one of us”. Knowing good and evil is *way *insufficient, in itself, to make one a god. Love is the quality that makes one like God, and, if it takes the experience-the knowledge-of good and evil in order to help drive us to choose the good alone, to choose love above all else, then such knowledge might serve a purpose. Otherwise, on it’s own, the knowledge of evil is totally worthless. In any case A&E didn’t possess any knowledge of good and evil prior to the fall; in their innocence there was no place for that, no need even for judging on their part. By remaining in communion with God, they simply didn’t sin. Banning man from eating from the tree of life had the purpose of placing a limit on moral evil. God wouldn’t want disorder to prevail in his universe eternally. In this way, with death as a specter hanging over our heads, we’re constrained by time, a beginning and an end, to strive to “get things right”, if we will.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, but we’re not to learn to determine right and wrong-to decide what is right and what is wrong for ourselves. Rather we’re to come to recognize what is right and wrong, by coming to acknowledge, for ourselves, the righteousness of He who alone is worthy of the role, the God who makes the rules to begin with.

**Well said. **

It is fascinating how the power of the word recognize can untangle those creative twists which people offer for the first three chapters of Genesis.

So, what is it we should recognize, but is not recognized in the more imaginative interpretations of Adam and Original Sin?

My own answer is that way too often, Genesis 1: 26-28 is not taken seriously.

So, what is it about those three verses that people fail to recognize?

My own simple answer is that human nature, both Adam’s and ours, has a rational spiritual soul, which is why “we’re to come to recognize what is right and wrong, by coming to acknowledge, for ourselves, the righteousness of He who alone is worthy of the role, the God who makes the rules to begin with.”

For those who wish to verify my own simple answer of Adam’s rational spiritual soul and our rational spiritual soul, one should consult paragraphs 355-357 & CCC, 362-366 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

By the way, CCC, 1260 is a good start for examining the first comments offered in post 458.

 

[sent_by_God]

Lost Sheep:

We are all conceived/born in the state of Original Sin; the sin of Adam.

Why are we held accountable for something someone did 1000s of years ago?

Excellent point. Original sin is one of the five cardinal errors of christianity.
PS: I can totally sympathize with your signature.

 

[vames]

No, man had become dangerous to* himself*-and God has only man’s best interest at heart. IMO, sarcasm was behind the statement, “He has become like one of us”. Knowing good and evil is *way *insufficient, in itself, to make one a god. Love is the quality that makes one like God, and, if it takes the experience-the knowledge-of good and evil in order to help drive us to choose the good alone, to choose love above all else, then such knowledge might serve a purpose. Otherwise, on it’s own, the knowledge of evil is totally worthless. In any case A&E didn’t possess any knowledge of good and evil prior to the fall; in their innocence there was no place for that, no need even for judging on their part. By remaining in communion with God, they simply didn’t sin. Banning man from eating from the tree of life had the purpose of placing a limit on moral evil. God wouldn’t want disorder to prevail in his universe eternally. In this way, with death as a specter hanging over our heads, we’re constrained by time, a beginning and an end, to strive to “get things right”, if we will.

Interesting, I like this. So there’s a difference between the theoretical knowledge of good and evil on its own and the experience that gives life to knowledge and makes one choose love and good alone. There’s no mention of “love” in the story of Adam and Eve, they don’t seem particularly glad for being created according to God’s likeness or particularly motivated to obey Him. But what kind of moral disorder would have prevailed in His universe eternally, had He refrained from throwing them out of Eden? Does one act of disobedience make a man so dangerous to himself and to the whole creation?

 

[vames]

Yes, the idea of a God who creates a Hell is one that drives many from the faith. But what if Hell was a bootcamp, where our eyes are opened to all the sin we ever did, when we were unaware of the consequences and the pain caused against God’s loved ones? If we scoffed at such pain, then our empathy had not been developed. God leads us in ways to lift all of the roadblocks to empathy, and then our eyes are opened. It is a shame that people are driven away from the Christianity because of doctrine on hell.

My favorite post on the thread was the one by Meltzerboy: “I don’t have to imagine. Judaism is not imbued with the notion of hell as other religions are.” The rest of his post reflect a dualistic outlook, but he speaks the truth, the threat of hell does not make a huge difference in human behavior. We have (thank God) consciences that punish us, and we have societies that control behaviors through laws. I heard a recent statistic on women sexually harassed and abused in the Israeli military, and their stats are not far from those of the U.S. Does that say anything? Maybe not.

Since the idea of a never-ending hell is a logical conclusion of dualism, and since dualism itself is a logical deduction based on the workings of our consciences, I argue that perhaps belief in hell is a matter of human nature. To me, for certain, dualism is a matter of human nature, for I have spoken to several atheists and “new age” types who speak of “bad people” (resentment included) just as readily as anyone else.

So, if a person says “if there were no hell, no punishment from God, people would not behave”, Then I would take their word for it! They are speaking from a position of projection (as we all are) and they need the threat of punishment in order to behave themselves, and that is their truth. We can give them time for the law to be “written in their hearts”, where love and empathy can be the guide, rather than fear.

I’m not really sure if the idea of Hell can drive people away from the faith on its own. So many generations lived and died without having any problems with Hell; and my understanding is that ancient atheists rather had a problem with the attribution of natural phenomena to gods and not so much with the idea that souls can be rewarded or punished in the afterlife. Moreover, the idea of Hell can be consoling (I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a “There is a God above!” from non-practicing Christians as an expression of hope that their enemies will be punished) and can entice one to embrace a religion where the fate of souls in the afterlife is clearly defined, according to clearly defined ethical standards (I have read somewhere that the Zoroastrian “hell” was particularly harsh for those guilty of having harmed animals, especially cattle). My Orthodox friends object to the Catholic understanding of afterlife precisely because they don’t see it as clearly defined enough (Either/or! Why do you have to introduce purgatory as an intermediary state?)

So, yes, in a way the belief in Hell is a matter of human nature. Meltzerboy is right - the emphasis on here and now is explainable by the non-dogmatic nature of Judaism and the multitude of theological opinions derived from various sacred texts. There is a Gehenna, but it is only temporary, like a purgatory of up to 12 months, then the souls of the righteous ascend to the World to Come and the souls of the unrighteous are annihilated, or maybe continue to be punished. Annihilation seems, however, the most striking difference from the Christian understanding of the afterlife: seen from the perspective of our “drive to punish”, it can be difficult to tell what is more frightening - eternal death or eternal punishment.

A bootcamp where our eyes are opened to all the sin we ever did? That would be Purgatory, isn’t it? But then it depends on how you conceive it, because Purgatory may be exactly as frightening as Hell. Or not, if you read Benedict XVI. You may like to check out this thread

 

[grannymh]

Catholicism recognizes God’s powerful love for Adam and Eve and subsequently ourselves. This is the foundation for our spirituality.

God’s desire is for us to spend eternity in perfect joy, peace, love, safety in His **full **presence in the spiritual world of heaven. That Adam and Eve and all their descendants are created in the image of God is testimony to our ultimate goal of sharing, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life (Sanctifying Grace) here and after earthly death. (Genesis 1: 26-31; CCC, 355-356)

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t see it happening in our lifetime, but I can imagine such a world, precisely because we aren’t alone with our thoughts. The realization that “Googlians are NOT bad people” (and DON’T deserve to be ostracized, enslaved, persecuted, killed) has already happened and continues to happen, as shown by our history. More and more groups of Googlians (Gentiles/Jews, Catholics/Protestants, white/black people…) have slowly learned to understand each other and abandon their resentments. Some centuries ago, capital punishment by burning at the stake was considered good, now is considered inhuman. Some decades ago, corporal punishment of children in schools was considered good, now is considered an abuse. I can see that in a group of adults who have a task and a deadline, those who resort to accusations and threats are obviously less efficient than those who gain the respect and loyalty of others by treating them with empathy.

Well, the people in charge of American foreign policy haven’t caught on. And even though John Paul II was against our invasion of Iraq, big Catholic voices in America pushed to go to war. It’s the whole “war to create peace” thing. People don’t realize that the opposite of war is not lack of war. The opposite of war is reconciliation.

Even “If you want peace, work for justice” is a bit of a red herring. It is true that lack of justice creates an uncontrolled situation, which “pushes” enmity. However, the ultimate goal is reconciliation. Justice certainly helps, but “justice” is in the eyes of the beholder. Look at Israel and Palestine; both sides seek justice. What is needed is forgiveness. Unconditional forgiveness.

Our airwaves and politics in America are full of resentment towards the “other”, and Catholics get involved with it too. Where is the voice of faith? Is the voice of faith “God resents all of those people.”?

When we as Catholics talk about making a difference in the world, stopping abortion, opposing injustice, “upholding values”, etc. are we showing the world a face of forgiveness, or a face of resentment?

We can work to make a difference, but the emphasis should always be to forgive first, before facing the world. Does the face of resentment “share the good news”? It does not.

The Good News is that despite the workings of our own consciences, and the consciences of the collective, we have a Creator that loves us very much, and sees the value and beauty of what He made. And, as Jesus showed us, the Creator’s love is not what is depicted by human conscience, it is a true love, an unconditional love.

Fr. Richard Rohr talks about the “second half of life”.

It seems to me that the concept of original sin is functional for “first half of life” thinking. The voice inside, God, is the voice of our conscience. The conscience says “behave this way, and I will love you, behave that way, and I will not”. With the development of empathy and learning how to forgive others, we find a voice deeper than the conscience, a voice that says “I love you no matter what.”

What is amazing is that both voices can be heard in the Gospel, so it is for everyone regardless of which half we are in. The Church, however, has built its theology largely around first-half-of-life spirituality.

 

[OneSheep]

What I have presenting in this thread is an approach toward evangelism. Is this a “new evangelism”? Well, maybe. In the past, the Church has done a great job of presenting a faith that makes sense to young people, it certainly made sense to me.

But, have you noticed? There are more of us older folks around, and many of us have followed the gospel and forgiven everyone, and the idea of a god that forgives “only if” doesn’t make sense anymore. We have wives, husbands, and kids, if nothing else, where no “only if” applies. We older folks have learned to love unconditionally. The Church, as a population, is older now than it has ever been in its history. We older folks need a different definition of “original sin”, and the Church needs to allow for that. The standard view of “original sin” doesn’t work for me anymore. I am not saying that the definition needs to change, what I am saying is that, perhaps, it needs to be clarified in order to allow for a deeper view of our Creator. We need a “second half” definition.

So, to me, a “new evangelism” respects first-half-of-life spirituality, including the standard ideas of original sin, but encourages followers to forgive everyone, even the “icons” of those we resent, like Hitler, Stalin, and Pinochet. Is this the lesson for our age, to take something as horrific as the holocaust(s) and yet learn how to forgive the worst of enemies? Yes.

So, readers, are you a mature person who is still stuck in holding onto grudges and resenting your enemies (including yourself)? Forgive, and enter a new life!

I would like feedback on this. Please, readers, feel free to join in.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting, I like this. So there’s a difference between the theoretical knowledge of good and evil on its own and the experience that gives life to knowledge and makes one choose love and good alone. There’s no mention of “love” in the story of Adam and Eve, they don’t seem particularly glad for being created according to God’s likeness or particularly motivated to obey Him. But what kind of moral disorder would have prevailed in His universe eternally, had He refrained from throwing them out of Eden? Does one act of disobedience make a man so dangerous to himself and to the whole creation?

Adam’s act of disobedience is operative daily in our world. Human self-righteousness, apart from God, is responsible for every moral evil (sin), large or small, that we commit or are victim to, all moral evil that we experience-or know-in this life. I don’t know about you but I deal with it every day. Ego overrides truth and reason. All wrong is done in the name of right.

The reason the greatest commandments, which came later on, are what they are: to love God and neighbor, is that love is what Adam was missing, love is the whole enchilada, the culmination of God’s plan of salvation for man, from the beginning. “Thou shalt obey” was the basic command to Adam, but it’s the equivalent of “Thou shalt Love” because love is the only reason for obedience, the only authentic way of obeying.
"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me." John 14:21 We’re here to come to learn of this love that is foundational to our universe (“God is love”, 1 John 4:8) and why it’s so critically important, so supremely valuable.

If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children. St Basil

 

[grannymh]

The reason that I maintain that Adam possessed the knowledge of good and evil prior to his actual Original Sin is that
I agree with the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam has a true rational spiritual soul directly, immediately, and completely created instantaneously by God. This means that Adam possessed the spiritual soul’s faculties of intellect and will. One of intellect’s tools can discern good from evil according to the “voice” of God originally living within Adam.

In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam was directly created in the state of original holiness, which means that Adam, the creature, was in a true friendship relationship with God, the only Creator, from the very beginning of human history. Therefore, it should be obvious that Adam could easily use his rational powers to figure out, in advance of eating organic fruit, that being in friendship with God was good and not being in friendship with God was evil.

 

[fhansen]

The reason that I maintain that Adam possessed the knowledge of good and evil prior to his actual Original Sin is that
I agree with the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church teaches that Adam has a true rational spiritual soul directly, immediately, and completely created instantaneously by God. This means that Adam possessed the spiritual soul’s faculties of intellect and will. One of intellect’s tools can discern good from evil according to the “voice” of God originally living within Adam.

In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that Adam was directly created in the state of original holiness, which means that Adam, the creature, was in a true friendship relationship with God, the only Creator, from the very beginning of human history. Therefore, it should be obvious that Adam could easily use his rational powers to figure out, in advance of eating organic fruit, that being in friendship with God was good and not being in friendship with God was evil.

I think it’s difficult to know what Adam knew-especially concerning the “worth” of God and His wisdom. But evil certainly would not have been within the realm of his experience since God created only good, which Adam was surrounded by in Eden. Evil could only be known once Adam participated in it by committing his own act of evil, his own rebellion against God and His perfect will. What would Adam have to compare to in order to identify evil-or even to identify good perhaps, since everything was good? Evil could be defined as opposition to the will of God. This evil was known by humans from the time they first opposed His will themselves. We’re born into this rebellion or opposition; we’re born without direct, intuitive knowledge of God, without the intimate relationship with Him that Adam first enjoyed but apparently didn’t yet.appreciate. Adam was responsible for recognizing Gods goodness and clinging to or embracing it.. He knew by His conscience that disobedience was wrong but he didn’t yet know it experientially.

We’re here now to find that truth for ourselves, the Atonement being the ultimate, definitive, blatant demonstration/revelation of the goodness, mercy, trustworthiness, and unconditional love of God, reportedly when the time was ripe for it in human history.