Original Sin

[fhansen]

Great quote from St. Basil! When we are obeying for the “sake of good itself” we are following an informed conscience. But if when we are following our conscience because we don’t want to feel guilty, then we are still in the position of slaves, but such “slavery” has its place before the full development of our empathy. Now, when we obey “out of love for him who commands”, we are behaving with love of neighbor too, for God is in each and every one of us. Empathy itself is our guide, it is the “law written in our hearts”.

Conditional love is a blocked love, a blocked empathy. It is a love limited by the confines of our rulebooks.

So, if we can read and understand the doctrine of original sin in such a way that there is not a god involved who banishes, or does other such essentially permanent or even impermanent acts, the fear of punishment is not involved. “Obligation”, then, would not involve a negative reaction from God if we do not comply. If we can read the creation story in a way in which God forgives unconditionally, then there is no coercive pressure.

I read some of the consequences of the fall broadly, in a general way, as emphasizing the seriousness of sin-of detaching oneself from a certain “Higher Authority” than ourselves. And God’s forgiveness was already present and operative. The Church teaches thusly:

**410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.**

God knew we would fall, that the fall was actually a first step in our rising again, as we came to develop empathy, as we came to know and appreciate love, to know and value Him, a step which would become many steps over a long journey of humankind, God allowing much time and grace for the process, working with and revealing Himself to a chosen people, the ultimate light of His revelation being given via the Incarnation; the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ when the time was ripe in human history. And we follow the same path in our own, individual lives and histories…

I say this, though, admitting that coercive pressure has a place in our development, and the coercion comes from the activity of our own consciences. If we are in the position of “slaves” or “mercenaries”, and such position leads us to repent from some harmful behaviors, then such slavery or mercenary is much better than “disorder”, is it not?

Yes, that’s like saying the Old Covenant has its place until we’re mature enough to obey without a rulebook in front of us.

Fantastic find, fhansen. I am combing the internet for more from St.Basil. I read the quote to my wife-the-kindergarten-teacher, and she scowled a little about the last word, “children”. Children have a long way to go on empathy, can you imagine a person standing in front of a classroom full of 5-year-olds saying “it hurts me when you do not do be quiet”? Might as well give them all drum sets.

Yes, they aren’t always the best examples of obedience. I think it had more to do with our adopted status as children of God-and of the innocent love for Jesus that children had-that adults should have as well but are often too proud to allow.

 

[grannymh]

Conditional love is a blocked love, a blocked empathy. It is a love limited by the confines of our rulebooks.

On the other hand, I view human nature as being able to freely and deliberately know, love, serve God and eventually remain in joy eternal. One of the basic foundations of Catholicism is the fact that human nature itself is different in kind from the rest of creation. This is because our human nature unites both the spiritual and material worlds into “one union” which forms a single nature who is the human being.

Paragraphs *CCC *355-368 along with CCC 1730 can lift me up when all I see is the “vale of tears.” The last thing I want to do is to block God’s personal presence by being in the state of Mortal Sin. Yes, God does love me unconditionally even when I am muddy from toe to head. However, when I am in the condition of Mortal Sin, God’s Sanctifying Grace (sharing in the life of the Trinity) is absent from my soul. (CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, Page 889; CCC, 1854 -1857; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

 

[grannymh]

The discussion continues.
granny’s reference is to post 676, concluding sentence.

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
May I suggest that item 40 Q & A be read more than once, especially the words “without any injustice.”

No, this is not justice. This is not something an Almighty Being does to an utterly limited creature.

granny offers this perspective.

“an utterly limited creature” is one of the issues which was new to me when I first landed on CAF. Finally, I posted that I flat out refused to be a rock. Back then, the discussion flowed around some form of “determinism.” I was just as determined that I could commit my own sins, thank you.

Today, because I am looking at the creation stories, (plural intended) I would suggest that “limited creature” refers more to the nature of a particular creature. Naturally, this observation of our environment and its inhabitants is open for further discussion.

Genesis 1: 1 is a basic Catholic doctrine. Genesis 1: 2 begins the list of limited created things. While most people hold that Genesis 1: 2-25 is not “science”, the author was aware that apples do not grow on stars and thus stars are limited in what they can produce. Apple trees are limited because they cannot walk to the store to get their day’s nourishment. Even with nourishing breakfast, lunch, dinner, and night time snack, humans are not eagle eyed. Our limited eyesight needs a telescope to see stars clearly. In addition, flapping human arms like eagles’ wings does not work when we want to fly close to the stars as possible. However, eagles are limited to creative nests. They cannot design and execute better and better airplanes and space stations. The Genesis author ended his list of limited creatures with a nod to wild animals, birds, and creeping things of the earth. The abrupt change leads to interesting thoughts.

If humans were only in the image of other creatures which have a basic limited material nature which is technically similar to our basic limited material nature, there would be no way for humans to have a two-way communication with a purely non-material nature such as the Creator’s. The Genesis author, even though terribly unscientific, was well aware of the fact that God could communicate on a human level. He repeatedly writes “Then God said”. Apparently, knowing that someone said something about the material universe, would then spark human curiosity to actually look at the actual universe with all its inhabitants and figure out that there had to be a supernatural Creator/God. I believe that St. Paul used a similar type of reasoning.

Following a limited list of all the created things and created critters, the author points out the fact that we can communicate back to God because in verses 26-27, God also said that “man” would be created “in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them.” The next verse, “God blessed them, saying: Be fertile and multiply;” assures readers that Adam and Eve are not some one-time wonder or some kind of a mistake. We, who are the fruit of Adam and Eve’s procreative acts, are in the image of God.

Being in the image of God refers to the fact that we humans are spiritual beings and as such, God and ourselves can communicate with each other. There are other results and conditions involved with being in the image of God, but for now, we need to analyze if we are or are not an “utterly limited creature.”

 

[simpleas]

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.

Thanks.
I understand what you mean about it being a different world, but we accept Mary was free from O.S and never committed any personal sins. Full of grace, so someone like this would be treated with the upmost reverence.

The link on post… (can’t remember which one) from Vames is very interesting regarding Mary’s labour, if the birth wasn’t like a natural birth, then no pain could be felt.

It’s not a question I have to find an answer for, it’s just an interesting thought.

 

[simpleas]

I apologize for writing such a long post, but you’ll understand why I need to gather all the pieces of this puzzle

This inner peace depends on a single thing: shedding fear.

Like I said, calls to repentance, warnings, threats are necessary, because they are parts of our education; but once you understand that you have to do a certain thing because it is good and not because you fear punishment if you don’t do it, you become able to function without “scaffolds”/“toddle trucks”, because your building is nicely finished/you can safely walk on your feet. It doesn’t mean that you are infallible (Adam wasn’t infallible either), *but you “know good from bad”: you’ve learned from experience that if you do good things, the reward is in themselves, because sooner or later they engender and attract good(ness), and if you do bad things, the punishment is in themselves, because sooner or later they engender and attract bad(ness). *
The secret is not to throw the child together with the bathwater. You see all the suffering in the world (a result of both human and natural evil), but you know that God is good, so you rationalize it by thinking that humankind is bad, fallen: there must have been an ideal Golden Age when suffering didn’t exist, man’s perfect goodness matched God’s perfect goodness and there was a friendly environment where, like in Isaiah 11, the wolf lives peacefully with the lamb and the leopard lies down with the kid. So if such a Golden Age doesn’t exist anymore, it must have been man’s fault and God was somehow constrained (?) to punish him and degrade him. Hence the Genesis stories: Adam was bad, so God punishes us all, God repented for having created man and destroyed all the people and animals except for those included in Noah’s ark.

That’s how you (we) become motivated by by fear, blinded by fear: you can’t love and trust God anymore if you think that God is always ready to strike and punish you. And the amount of things that you feel you have to do to buy forgiveness and salvation, to appease God grows and grows. You see that someone has harmed you or others and conclude that he deserves hell… nay, most people have to end up in hell! You become ill and conclude that God wants to punish you for your sins… nay, it’s for the sins of your parents, family, country, ancestors, Adam and Eve! You see a deadly typhoon or earthquake and conclude that God is angry and wants to punish that country… nay, He wants to warn and then punish all of us! You repent for your sins… nay, you start to hate yourself and think that if you resort to various forms of mortification, self-denial, if you punish yourself, if you bring various sacrifices, maybe you can earn God’s forgiveness and God will spare you (but how many times God says in the Bible that He is disgusted with offerings and animal sacrifices and all He wants from people is to leave their sinful ways?).

This is an unhealthy and dangerous path, because you cease to act based on your experience (doing good is good for you and the others) and start to act as if God and man were opposite forces, the Good and the Bad, the Kingdom of God (afterlife) and the World (our life), the Spirit and the Flesh, the Soul and the Body, so if we want to do God’s will, we must deny, avoid, ignore, destroy everything that pertains to man, our body, our world. This was a Gnostic error: some Gnostic pushed this opposition to its logical extremes and believed that the Spirit/Soul was good because it was made by God and the Body/Flesh was made by the devil, so they sought to escape the world, sometimes even by avoiding eating or having kids. We recognize that it was an error, but we continue to behave as if Gnostics were right everytime when we hate our God-given gifts - our instincts, our body, the way our mind works. If we recognize that God made us this way, we understand that God loves us and wants our happiness, which is to make the most of our gifts instead of misusing and wasting them. It’s that simple. God doesn’t want us to inflict suffering upon ourselves so as to become “worthy”. We are “worthy” because we are His creatures. We don’t have to reject and hate ourselves and the world: we only have to try to make it better. And in the process we become truly happy.

(cont’d…)

Sounds like the law of attraction!

Most of what you say again I agree with, I don’t see God as wanting us to suffer by not doing what we believe is good and true. I see a God who helps us in suffering at the hands of others.

 

[simpleas]

There are people who suspect that if one doesn’t believe anymore that humanity is fallen and cursed, that person has an agenda, seeks to deny that sin exists, seeks to become free to sin, seeks to promote pride and carelessness. But if the foundation of your building is really solid, you won’t do that, no matter how many times you fall and sin again.

In this thread I have quoted Pope Benedict and Pope Francis’ thoughts that God’s righteousness and justice is His mercy, His grace. Consider this story, which I like a lot. Abraham insists and asks: “What if only 50, 45, 40, 20, 10 righteous people can be found in the city?”. This story is not about an unjust God who punishes all people for the sins of some people. It’s not a story about a legalistic God who counts the righteous and the unrighteous. It’s not about a mythical God who eventually destroys a real or imagined city for a particular sin. It’s about God’s love and forgiveness when He gazes upon a soul and always prefers to see the good in us and always gives us another chance. As the psalmist says, “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?”. If we are asked to forgive “seventy times seven”, it’s because He does that.

Yeah, I scared myself by my ever continuing questions on sin, thinking i’m trying to convince myself that i’m not that bad a sinner, none of us are that bad really, when i know i am a sinner as is everyone, and that i just need to seek knowledge to help me find the answers.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks.
I understand what you mean about it being a different world, but we accept Mary was free from O.S and never committed any personal sins. Full of grace, so someone like this would be treated with the upmost reverence.

The link on post… (can’t remember which one) from Vames is very interesting regarding Mary’s labour, if the birth wasn’t like a natural birth, then no pain could be felt.

It’s not a question I have to find an answer for, it’s just an interesting thought.

Well, here’s another thought then. At baptism we’re said to be free from OS also.

 

[OneSheep]

I read some of the consequences of the fall broadly, in a general way, as emphasizing the seriousness of sin-of detaching oneself from a certain “Higher Authority” than ourselves. And God’s forgiveness was already present and operative. The Church teaches thusly:

**410 After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends** superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

The idea of having to “make amends” to God means that God had not forgiven. If God withholds forgiveness sometimes, then a person is in the position of being coerced. The idea of “making amends”, or expiation, is what Cardinal Ratzinger addressed in the quote that has been posted several times on this thread. If there are “amends” to be made, then we are slaves to fear of punishment, as St. Basil says. Does God want us to be slaves to our fears, like those who suffer from scrupulosity? Perhaps, at least until our empathy has developed. To me, the CCC falls short of addressing the issues addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger and St. Basil. A person with a developed empathy does not need threats to keep his behavior in line. There comes a point in time when the slavery actually inhibits development of empathy. We are not compelled to empathize and punish at the same time. The desire to punish, this working of the conscience, blocks empathy.

God knew we would fall, that the fall was actually a first step in our rising again, as we came to develop empathy, as we came to know and appreciate love, to know and value Him, a step which would become many steps over a long journey of humankind, God allowing much time and grace for the process, working with and revealing Himself to a chosen people, the ultimate light of His revelation being given via the Incarnation; the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ when the time was ripe in human history. And we follow the same path in our own, individual lives and histories…

Problem is, the “fall” is not just something God knew would happen, like knowing when a storm will happen, but God actually imposes the Fall. When people “fall from our grace”, this is usually a matter of anger or resentment, certainly a lack of trust and forgiveness. It is rather easy to forgive Adam and Eve.

Yes, that’s like saying the Old Covenant has its place until we’re mature enough to obey without a rulebook in front of us.

I suppose it is. The “maturity” is the development of our empathy, which is ultimately the act of reconciliation within.

 

[fhansen]

The idea of having to “make amends” to God means that God had not forgiven. If God withholds forgiveness sometimes, then a person is in the position of being coerced. The idea of “making amends”, or expiation, is what Cardinal Ratzinger addressed in the quote that has been posted several times on this thread. If there are “amends” to be made, then we are slaves to fear of punishment, as St. Basil says. Does God want us to be slaves to our fears, like those who suffer from scrupulosity? Perhaps, at least until our empathy has developed. To me, the CCC falls short of addressing the issues addressed by Cardinal Ratzinger and St. Basil. A person with a developed empathy does not need threats to keep his behavior in line. There comes a point in time when the slavery actually inhibits development of empathy. We are not compelled to empathize and punish at the same time. The desire to punish, this working of the conscience, blocks empathy. .

But the making of amends was done by God, Himself. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger said that God did the reconciling. Sin is not a false concept or illusion. If so there’d be no forgiveness necessary, unconditional or otherwise. The Atonement acknowledges and addresses the reality of sin head-on. Jesus turns His cheek to the end, taking it down with Him all the way to death, not resisting the worst that human sin would enact against perfect beauty, truth, and innocence, and so simultaneously revealing/convicting the world of sin while forgiving it all at the same time.

Problem is, the “fall” is not just something God knew would happen, like knowing when a storm will happen, but God actually imposes the Fall. When people “fall from our grace”, this is usually a matter of anger or resentment, certainly a lack of trust and forgiveness. It is rather easy to forgive Adam and Eve. .

How did God impose the Fall? I never thought A&E needed my forgiveness in any case.

 

[fhansen]

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives

I’d like to explain the doctrine of OS a bit more from my perspective. The offense was only harmful to the offender. God, IMO, was never angry at man; enmity came from our side, not His. A “distorted image” of God is integral to the human psyche as we experience it in ourselves-Adam & Eve “hid” from Him. And we don’t overcome this image-this fear- simply because we’ve become a believer; it takes time and grace to come to know that God is love-to know what that really means.

The Atonement seeks to “undistort” this image, to prove what God shouldn’t have to prove: that He definitively exists, that He’s uncompromisingly, incomparably, trustworthy and good, that He loves with an unconditional love on a scale beyond our ability to even begin to imagine-that He was never angry at man in spite of man’s mistrust and even hatred, conscious or not, of Him.

The sin, the injustice, lies in our only vaguely believing in Him at best, let alone not hoping in, let alone not loving Him. We weren’t made to exist in such a state; our full integrity isn’t at all possible in such a state. We have an enormously difficult time leaving or overcoming such a state on our own; humbling ourselves before and bending the knee to God is to turn away from-to betray-the world in some basic manner. It cannot be done without grace.

 

[simpleas]

Well, here’s another thought then. At baptism we’re said to be free from OS also.

Yep I know, but we aren’t born with Grace are we?
We have to seek grace.

 

[simpleas]

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives

I’d like to explain the doctrine of OS a bit more from my perspective. The offense was only harmful to the offender. God, IMO, was never angry at man; enmity came from our side, not His. A “distorted image” of God is integral to the human psyche as we experience it in ourselves-Adam & Eve “hid” from Him. And we don’t overcome this image-this fear- simply because we’ve become a believer; it takes time and grace to come to know that God is love-to know what that really means.

The Atonement seeks to “undistort” this image, to prove what God shouldn’t have to prove: that He definitively exists, that He’s uncompromisingly, incomparably, trustworthy and good, that He loves with an unconditional love on a scale beyond our ability to even begin to imagine-that He was never angry at man in spite of man’s mistrust and even hatred, conscious or not, of Him.

The sin, the injustice, lies in our only vaguely believing in Him at best, let alone not hoping in, let alone not loving Him. We weren’t made to exist in such a state; our full integrity isn’t at all possible in such a state. We have an enormously difficult time leaving or overcoming such a state on our own; humbling ourselves before and bending the knee to God is to turn away from-to betray-the world in some basic manner. It cannot be done without grace.

Please help me understand this?

Could some of the stories in the O.T been all in mans mind?
When God told a leader of the time to kill certain people because they lived in sin and it deeply offended God, was this mans error, and God did not want this?

But then the O.T could not be the word of God, or maybe some of it?

Jesus did say – I desire mercy not sacrifice.

 

[fhansen]

Please help me understand this?

Could some of the stories in the O.T been all in mans mind?
When God told a leader of the time to kill certain people because they lived in sin and it deeply offended God, was this mans error, and God did not want this?

But then the O.T could not be the word of God, or maybe some of it?

Jesus did say – I desire mercy not sacrifice.

Anything inconsistent with love is not of God. And while it is consistent with love for God to oppose sin, and while that opposition could include ensuring that the people He chose to carry out His plan of salvation are protected, there is much in the OT that seems quite out of line with what we know to be God’s nature and will. And this means to me that, having less light with which to understand the nature and will of God than the church has had since then via the revelation of Jesus Christ, some OT authors were merely relating their opinion regarding His will for the Jews in any given case. The Church knows God, and that knowledge has grown clearer over the centuries. She does not interpret and pronounce on the meaning of every verse of scripture-very few, in fact. Also remember that every human being that has ever lived is alive today-and justice ultimately prevails in God’s universe.

 

[grannymh]

Please help me understand this?

Could some of the stories in the O.T been all in mans mind?
When God told a leader of the time to kill certain people because they lived in sin and it deeply offended God, was this mans error, and God did not want this?

But then the O.T could not be the word of God, or maybe some of it?

Jesus did say – I desire mercy not sacrifice.

Why get hung up with stories referencing ancient events?

The Catholic Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, has already determined Divine Revelation and there is to be no more new Revelation. (CCC, 65-67)

Obviously, sin has been around since the time of Adam and Eve. What one should be taking home from the “battles” in the Old Testament is that Mortal Sin is so evil that it destroys an individual’s relationship with the Creator. The free choice of maintaining Mortal Sin in one’s personal spiritual soul blocks God’s forgiveness because Mortal Sin blocks Sanctifying Grace.

Yet, and please notice, God throughout the Old Testament continues to love, with the deepest Divine love, all individuals regardless of the *condition *of their soul. Consider the fact that the Old Testament continues into the New Testament. Isaiah presents insights about the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.

People, who are interested in eternity, need to think about the Big Picture which does include the human ability to block God’s presence within their soul. Obviously, God’s creative power of love necessarily upholds and sustains creation. (CCC, 301) Nonetheless, the human creatures have the power to go beyond the limitations of the material world and to actively seek the presence of God within them–this is known as Sanctifying Grace in one’s soul .

CCC, 1730 is fundamental knowledge about human nature and its abilities. The supporting information, in small print, refers to the human creature as being a master over her or his acts. It is the intellective and free will powers of the spiritual soul which give human creatures the ability to share in God’s life (Sanctifying Grace) On the other hand, it is a terrible mistake to avoid the fact that our intellect and free will are also capable of choosing the state of Mortal Sin.

God loves us in any state or condition. This is evinced by the Resurrection.

Mortal Sin, also a state or condition, does not block God’s love–it blocks God’s individual presence by eliminating Sanctifying Grace in our very own soul.

Very important sources of Catholic information.

CCC, 1730; CCC, 355-421;
CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, Page 889; CCC, 1854 -1857; CCC, 1870-1876;
CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898. CCC, 1998-2000; CCC, 2023-204.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

 

[OneSheep]

But the making of amends was done by God, Himself.
This is why Cardinal Ratzinger said that God did the reconciling.

Here is the quote again, because I like it so much, in the review that vames sent:

Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity criticizes the old theory about a vengeful God needing reparation: “Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God”. He states that “God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them”, because “His righteousness is grace”, so the crucifixion “does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

The problem is that the old theory says that man messed up, and God takes offense and punishes man; that is the version when you peel away all the well-intended apologetics. If God comes and makes amends for His own wrath, then this is even more confusing. It’s like, “I’m really angry at these humans, let me send my son so they can kill him, and then I’ll feel better, I won’t hold it against man any more.” To me, no reparation is necessary, only salvation from our own human condition. This salvation is addressed directly by that wonderful quote from St. Basil, the salvation from being either a mercenary or a slave, both of which make us, to some degree, automatons.

Sin is not a false concept or illusion. If so there’d be no forgiveness necessary, unconditional or otherwise. The Atonement acknowledges and addresses the reality of sin head-on. Jesus turns His cheek to the end, taking it down with Him all the way to death, not resisting the worst that human sin would enact against perfect beauty, truth, and innocence, and so simultaneously revealing/convicting the world of sin while forgiving it all at the same time.

How did God impose the Fall? I never thought A&E needed my forgiveness in any case.

A&E only “needed” your forgiveness if you held anything against them. You bring up a good point, though, about forgiveness being necessary. Does God ever take offense? Does God ever hold anything against anyone? Well, not the God that I know in my relationship. Is Jesus convicting the world? Isn’t there something in the NT that says that Jesus did not come to judge the world?

To me, God does not convict, judge, or take offense. God sees our blindness, and does not rejoice in our sin, but sees it as understandable given the circumstances of appetites and blindness.

But Jesus says “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, which means that there is a possibility that the Father does need to go through the process of forgiveness. However, in my view, the prayer is not so much an appeal to God the Father as it is a message, a teaching, to humans. It is a teaching that says we can forgive unconditionally, and this is how to do it. Jesus was human too. Being incarnate, he had to experience what it was like to feel guilty and to feel resentful. Jesus speaks with his “human” hat on.

 

[fhansen]

Here is the quote again, because I like it so much, in the review that vames sent:

Joseph Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity criticizes the old theory about a vengeful God needing reparation: “Almost all religions centre round the problem of expiation; they arise out of man’s knowledge of his guilt before God and signify the attempt to remove this feeling of guilt, to surmount the guilt through conciliatory actions offered up to God”. He states that “God does not wait until the guilty come to be reconciled; he goes to meet them and reconciles them”, because “His righteousness is grace”, so the crucifixion “does not stand there as the work of expiation which mankind offers to the wrathful God, but as the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

The problem is that the old theory says that man messed up, and God takes offense and punishes man; that is the version when you peel away all the well-intended apologetics. If God comes and makes amends for His own wrath, then this is even more confusing. It’s like, “I’m really angry at these humans, let me send my son so they can kill him, and then I’ll feel better, I won’t hold it against man any more.” To me, no reparation is necessary, only salvation from our own human condition. This salvation is addressed directly by that wonderful quote from St. Basil, the salvation from being either a mercenary or a slave, both of which make us, to some degree, automatons.

A&E only “needed” your forgiveness if you held anything against them. You bring up a good point, though, about forgiveness being necessary. Does God ever take offense? Does God ever hold anything against anyone? Well, not the God that I know in my relationship. Is Jesus convicting the world? Isn’t there something in the NT that says that Jesus did not come to judge the world?

To me, God does not convict, judge, or take offense. God sees our blindness, and does not rejoice in our sin, but sees it as understandable given the circumstances of appetites and blindness.

But Jesus says “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, which means that there is a possibility that the Father does need to go through the process of forgiveness. However, in my view, the prayer is not so much an appeal to God the Father as it is a message, a teaching, to humans. It is a teaching that says we can forgive unconditionally, and this is how to do it. Jesus was human too. Being incarnate, he had to experience what it was like to feel guilty and to feel resentful. Jesus speaks with his “human” hat on.

Maybe read post 698 first if you don’t mind and we can take it from there.

 

[simpleas]

Anything inconsistent with love is not of God. And while it is consistent with love for God to oppose sin, and while that opposition could include ensuring that the people He chose to carry out His plan of salvation are protected, there is much in the OT that seems quite out of line with what we know to be God’s nature and will. And this means to me that, having less light with which to understand the nature and will of God than the church has had since then via the revelation of Jesus Christ, some OT authors were merely relating their opinion regarding His will for the Jews in any given case. The Church knows God, and that knowledge has grown clearer over the centuries. She does not interpret and pronounce on the meaning of every verse of scripture-very few, in fact. Also remember that every human being that has ever lived is alive today-and justice ultimately prevails in God’s universe.

Thank you.

Yes the church doesn’t interpret every verse of scripture, this is what makes me wonder. If some authors were just relating their opinion is this why we don’t hear from some of those writings yet they are in our O.T.?
We always say “This is the word of the Lord” at the end of a O.T reading.

 

[simpleas]

Why get hung up with stories referencing ancient events?

The Catholic Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, has already determined Divine Revelation and there is to be no more new Revelation. (CCC, 65-67)

Obviously, sin has been around since the time of Adam and Eve. What one should be taking home from the “battles” in the Old Testament is that Mortal Sin is so evil that it destroys an individual’s relationship with the Creator. The free choice of maintaining Mortal Sin in one’s personal spiritual soul blocks God’s forgiveness because Mortal Sin blocks Sanctifying Grace.

Yet, and please notice, God throughout the Old Testament continues to love, with the deepest Divine love, all individuals regardless of the *condition *of their soul. Consider the fact that the Old Testament continues into the New Testament. Isaiah presents insights about the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.

People, who are interested in eternity, need to think about the Big Picture which does include the human ability to block God’s presence within their soul. Obviously, God’s creative power of love necessarily upholds and sustains creation. (CCC, 301) Nonetheless, the human creatures have the power to go beyond the limitations of the material world and to actively seek the presence of God within them–this is known as Sanctifying Grace in one’s soul .

CCC, 1730 is fundamental knowledge about human nature and its abilities. The supporting information, in small print, refers to the human creature as being a master over her or his acts. It is the intellective and free will powers of the spiritual soul which give human creatures the ability to share in God’s life (Sanctifying Grace) On the other hand, it is a terrible mistake to avoid the fact that our intellect and free will are also capable of choosing the state of Mortal Sin.

God loves us in any state or condition. This is evinced by the Resurrection.

Mortal Sin, also a state or condition, does not block God’s love–it blocks God’s individual presence by eliminating Sanctifying Grace in our very own soul.

Very important sources of Catholic information.

CCC, 1730; CCC, 355-421;
CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, Page 889; CCC, 1854 -1857; CCC, 1870-1876;
CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898. CCC, 1998-2000; CCC, 2023-204.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

I’m not getting hung up about it, but it is something that prompts questions for me

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I was trying to ask how we see a loving God in the stories of the O.T. I’m getting mixed messages on here (and i know its mostly me who doesn’t quite understand) One way we say, God loves us unconditionally and always has from the beginning. Next we say God loves us on condition we act and do exactly as he has told us to do, and then God loves us and wants us to be who we are without us feeling fear.

The first reading at mass on sunday was Malachi 3:19-20

“But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness will shine out with healing in its rays”

So we can love God, but we must also fear him to a certain degree?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you.

Yes the church doesn’t interpret every verse of scripture, this is what makes me wonder. If some authors were just relating their opinion is this why we don’t hear from some of those writings yet they are in our O.T.?
We always say “This is the word of the Lord” at the end of a O.T reading.

Can’t answer about how the readings are selected but I’d imagine some might be more problematic than others. I’d think the Church, having received the deposit of faith herself would use her resources, Scripture and Tradition, with the wisdom necessary to best reflect God’s will according to her understanding of it.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not getting hung up about it, but it is something that prompts questions for me

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I was trying to ask how we see a loving God in the stories of the O.T. I’m getting mixed messages on here (and i know its mostly me who doesn’t quite understand) One way we say, God loves us unconditionally and always has from the beginning. Next we say God loves us on condition we act and do exactly as he has told us to do, and then God loves us and wants us to be who we are without us feeling fear.

The first reading at mass on sunday was Malachi 3:19-20

“But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness will shine out with healing in its rays”

So we can love God, but we must also fear him to a certain degree?

"Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Prov 9:10. It could be said that Adam didn’t properly fear the Lord, in terms of standing in awe, in terms of respect for His power, in terms of acknowledging God’s rightful claim to his obedience. God has the right to place requirements/obligations on man, even if that only obligation could be summed up with “Thou Shalt Love”, which, ultimately, is what God wants from us, but more importantly,* for *us. God’s first command to man was, essentially, “Thou Shalt Obey”.

But man didn’t obey, for whatever reasons, and the rest of God’;s dealings with man are aimed at showing us just why-and how- man should obey God. St Basil’s quote sums it up. It all boils down to* love*. As we come to know God better we begin to trust Him more, as we trust Him more we begin to love Him. As we begin to love Him fear of punishment is abated-dissolved-because, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” John 4:18 If we want to have a decent description of what love is-of God’s nature-read 1 Cor 13.

When we meet God we’ll still stand in awe-if we can remain standing at all-but fear won’t be part of the equation-as in fear of harm. Just the opposite in fact; total security, well-being, peace, ineffable happiness is the direct result of the presence of God. But to the extent that we’re outside of His will, that we’re not turned towards Him, that we haven’t come to know and trust in Him, that we fail to love, we miss-we dismiss- those gifts, and fear still plays a role.