Yes, I’m becoming more convinced of this.
And from here it went further downhill. To break down the specific causes of a person becoming just in the eyes of God (since you seem bent on it)-of being washed of OS, of this ‘estrangement being dissolved’, Trent lists several, all of which play their roles, some on God’s part, at least one on ours:
I don’t recall anyone saying so-only that they’re related. Here’s how the catechism begins paragraph 2843: **“Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end become a living reality.” ** Come to think of it maybe the two aren’t really different after all.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for explaining it the way you have.
I know very well what you’re talking about. Here’s what I think about these things.
“Hate” is a shortcut. Hate is an energy-consuming feeling, so few people actually spend their time with clenched fists, thinking “I wish X dead!” or “how could I make X suffer!”. But if I come to the conclusion that X is a moron, a tool of the devil on earth or merely a useless, worthless being, I can’t see anymore that he is made in the image of God, regardless of his mistakes, hardened heart, clouded mind etc. At school or in a company, a new colleague is mocked and despised by the others - he or she is dumb, a redneck, a Mormon, too ugly, too poor etc.: if one or two colleagues break this pattern of “pack mentality” and give this new guy a chance, he opens up and flourishes and after a while he is valued and regarded as “one of us”. Like children, people need love (encouragement, attention, benevolence, not being labeled and pigeonholed) to develop. Otherwise they become hostile, vengeful, lose their self-esteem, end up by “living up” to the bad expectations of others (you treat me like garbage, so I am garbage and I will treat you as garbage too). This is the “hell on earth”.
The way I see it, the conscience itself creates a necessary division within. We have the parts of ourselves that we condemn, and all the parts of ourselves that we condone. This is the way our conscience functions. This division, to me, is a normal part of growing up, as our conscience guides us to avoid what we condemn as our empathy develops and itself eventually becomes our guide. As this empathy development happens, (over time) the conscience eventually becomes rather obsolete, but when our behaviors are basically in control we can reconcile the two sides. St Augustine appears to have been unable to reconcile with certain parts of himself, even though his experience of reconciling with most of his appetites led him to make some very profound nondualistic statements.
To summarize, then, the division is in our minds. We can achieve wholeness, holiness, through the reconciliation process I briefly described. The manifestation of the division between humans is that we consider some people good and some people bad; the “bad” people are those who most exhibit the parts of ourselves that we condemn. For this reason, hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception. We all have big beams in our own eyes to be removed (repented from, and then reconciled with) in order to remove the sliver from our brother’s eyes.
: .Well, it would be nice to view the story from that perspective. Problem is, we have this omnipotence issue to deal with, and the story has God choosing to banish man. To have such a choice appear more like gravity would take a major rewrite. i.e. “Even God had no control over the consequence.” In such case, why would a loving God put the tree there in the first place?
Vames – You are truly appreciated for posting Catholic beliefs in post 662. Thank you sincerely. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11407656&postcount=662
Forgiveness accomplishes nothing-for the offender-where disorder/sin continues. We should look at aspects of the message of the fall as symbolically, dramatically depicting the severity of harm done to creation when it places itself outside God’s will. The journey that humankind is on is one away from God and, hopefully, back to Him.
Thank you for your answers and links.“Hate” is a shortcut. Hate is an energy-consuming feeling, so few people actually spend their time with clenched fists, thinking “I wish X dead!” or “how could I make X suffer!”. But if I come to the conclusion that X is a moron, a tool of the devil on earth or merely a useless, worthless being, I can’t see anymore that he is made in the image of God, regardless of his mistakes, hardened heart, clouded mind etc. At school or in a company, a new colleague is mocked and despised by the others - he or she is dumb, a redneck, a Mormon, too ugly, too poor etc.: if one or two colleagues break this pattern of “pack mentality” and give this new guy a chance, he opens up and flourishes and after a while he is valued and regarded as “one of us”. Like children, people need love (encouragement, attention, benevolence, not being labeled and pigeonholed) to develop. Otherwise they become hostile, vengeful, lose their self-esteem, end up by “living up” to the bad expectations of others (you treat me like garbage, so I am garbage and I will treat you as garbage too). This is the “hell on earth”.
On happiness: not everyone has such wise parents, teachers, priests, friends who give us the best advices about what can benefit and what can harm us and not everyone is so wise to listen to such good advices. In some cases, the adults or friends are wrong and we listen to them; in other cases, the adults or friends are right and we don’t listen. We can grow up with the idea that sex or hard work is always a wrong thing or always a right thing. That’s why some cheat on their spouses or see even marital sex as something disgusting and sinful, become workaholics and neglect their families or lazy and a bad example at work. Eventually everyone learns from mistakes, learns to think for himself/herself and figures out the right balance.
These examples (and IMO any other example) show that having to choose between “selfish” happiness and “selfless” happiness is actually a false problem: you can’t be happy at the expense of others or by totally denying yourself. ***God doesn’t want your life to be a long mortification, doesn’t want you to repress everything natural within you as a proof that you are “spiritualized” enough to be prepared for Heaven. ***This is what Origen did when he mutilated himself. Why do you think Pope Francis insists so much on “getting out”, helping others, choosing “to touch the flesh of Christ” over retreating into oneself? (not that retreating into oneself is a bad thing per se, of course). Here’s something to think about
Adam & Eve were said to live in a world without pain and suffering-nothing to weep* for*. Mary’s world wasn’t that way; good and evil coexist side by side here. Also, childbirth pains were said to increase due to OS, they already were part of Eden originally IOW. And Jesus, Himself, wept at times.Thank you for your answers and links.
Once i can work out what you say about God not wanting our lives to be a long mortification, as proof we are spiritualized enough for heaven, i’ll find that inner peace.
If Adam wasn’t fully “divine” for heaven before the O.S, yet had grace and immortality, wonder what he was going to have to do to reach that perfect creature status that was originally plan by God, before Satan destroyed it.
If we don’t live according to the teaching then we separate ourselves from God, whether we like it or not. Thats the teaching of our church, so to deny ourselves of some things we live for God, isn’t that what we need to do to be able to see God?
We say Our Lady was free from O.S, had grace, and possibly immortality, none of us know if she suffered child bearing pains… do we think she wept for he son when he was being nailed to the cross…if someone is without O.S they feel no pain or suffering according to the state Adam and Eve were enjoying before their sin. But does this mean they had no emotion/feelings before they fell?
How hard it is to to leave these questions aside and just except Gods plan for all of us.
I apologize for writing such a long post, but you’ll understand why I need to gather all the pieces of this puzzle
Thank you and thanks again for your patience. I like to lurk on various threads about A&E, because I consider this story as very creative, very open to all kinds of interpretations and I can’t stop being fascinated by all the things that people say about it. I kind of remember that you said elsewhere that your faith was shaken by the news of the non-existence of our first ancestors (not the topic of this thread and not a topic I’m interested in - monogenism or polygenism actually don’t have anything to do with the OS), so you felt the need to prove that the second account of Genesis (2-3) is literally true. I also feel the need to say that I have never sought dissent or debate for the sake of debating. In this thread, you had said that maybe I want a debate; I don’t. This is not my fight, so to speak: I don’t want to prove anything. I am still (?) grieving for the loss of my mother, so any poster who has “granny” in her nickname has my sympathy by default, no matter what she says. I just want to say that people who don’t believe that Genesis 2-3 is the literal truth aren’t necessarily prideful, badly catechized people who seek to undermine the Catholic faith. I just want to say that I haven’t lost my faith just because I can’t believe that Genesis 2-3 is the literal truth that should be believed under pain of heresy.
No, this is not justice. This is not something an Almighty Being does to an utterly limited creature. Either you give someone a gift (something unconditional, something that you don’t want to take back, regardless of the behavior of the recipient) or you don’t, so everything that you give (like the promise of immortality, painlessness, perfection) is just an installment of a loan, something that can be taken back anytime, at the slightest sign that the recipient doesn’t behave like you want him/her to behave. Adam and Eve couldn’t have created themselves as perfect, pain-free, immortal beings; they couldn’t have created themselves as suffering, mortal beings either and they couldn’t create a hostile natural enviroment, a purgatory or a hell. All these things couldn’t appear without God’s will. He was absolutely free to forgive or to punish A&E and the whole universe: He was the supreme lawgiver. So if you accept that all these things are created by God and not by A&E, you can’t postulate a good God anymore, because you have to acknowledge that God had punished all of us for a mistake of one or two utterly limited creatures.
I do have a copy of post 285. The beginning appears to question Adam’s mind. Being a true human, Adam would use his rational spiritual intellective powers. Going back to post 662, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11407656&postcount=662
I’m not sure whose forgiveness you are referring to here, but if a person forgives, they have repented from their grudge against someone. If Hitler had forgiven, then a lot of death and destruction would have been averted. But I think you are saying that if God forgives without repentance, then sin can continue, and nothing is accomplished. Forgiveness, though, if real, always accomplishes something. Jesus sure made a big deal about it, and I agree with Him.
There is really nothing I can say to contest this point. If you see that your journey has been one of turning away from God, and now you see that you are turning toward God, that is your experience. I respect your viewpoint, and it is not a subject of discussion. Thanks for sharing. Our perception of what mankind is doing will reflect our own journey.
But grace doesn’t garuantee that we"ll accept it just because it comes. God obviously knows that at least some will respond, however, or the whole thing would be an exercise in futility.
My journey started with not knowing God to begin with. And this is considered by Catholicism to be a disordered, harmful condition for man, even as it serves in the end to actually help teach us of our need for Him. Since that time, as I’ve sought Him, I’ve grown in His knowledge, profoundly at times, beyond even my ability to relate, and faith in and love for Him have grown accordingly. Anyway, I’m still working on understanding your take on the role of the conscience, as time allows.
But why should it be wrong for man to be held to moral accountability? Why shouldn’t the created-as a sentient, rational being-have an obligation to obey his creator? I like St Basil of Caesarea’s way of stating the correct way for this to take place:
Please accept my sincere sympathy for the loss of your mother. I am not sure that we are ever completely over grieving because there is a part of grieving which brings to the surface many good memories. I will always remember looking at my mother for the last time in her coffin. It was then that I knew for certain that there was a “life” after death.
