Original Sin

[grannymh]

I think we settled the ignorance part. We are born with the “law” within, but our conscience is educated life-long. Ignorance is a relative term. Does a child “learn” something toward the education of their conscience in the womb? Possibly! We are born with an incomplete education. To me, that still says “ignorance”, but I am thinking that you attach other negatives to the word. Do you like that description better?

As far as “automatic blindness” goes, you are unwilling to admit that any blindness ever happens, so we cannot begin to discuss whether it is automatic or not. Stalemate.

So, this is the way this will proceed:

For starters, the CCC says that A&E committed mortal sin, and mortal sin is defined as “with full knowledge”. This is the assertion that is being investigated.

If we talk about Adam’s mortal sin, it will proceed as follows:

OneSheep: So, let us begin the investigation. Why did Adam sin?

Granny: It is not much concern to me why Adam sinned. What is of more concern to me is (insert red herring here).

OneSheep: Well, we cannot determine if Adam had full knowledge unless we investigate why he sinned.

Granny: We already know that he sinned, and that he had full knowledge, it says so in the CCC.

This brings us back to the preliminary that I highlighted in green above. I almost wrote, in my previous post, “any example but Adam” but I thought “No, she won’t do it again, will she?” You did.

So, we can investigate Adam, but in order to do so, you must not use assertions from the CCC, because those are the very assertions being investigated. We are talking about understanding human behavior, Granny. This is not a new concept. As I mentioned before, St. Augustine did the same investigation.

Are you saying that the only sin you can say anything about is that of Adam and Eve? Isn’t sin obvious in the world? Pick one, pick something that people do to each other today, that way we do not have to enter a creation myth.

May I gently point out that I am not intimidated by any restrictions against using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition for explaining Catholic teachings about Adam and Original Sin. I will continue to use the Catechism for the benefit of readers.

My sincere apology, but I am unable to “investigate” Catholic spiritual issues without the universal Catholic Catechism. Thank you for the offer to do that, but I must decline.

For the benefit of readers, I will continue presenting information about various spiritual topics mentioned on this thread in a discussion format. That way, I can be corrected with better insights from Catholic teachings.

My first concern is the idea that God’s forgiveness is unconditional. We must be extra careful to avoid the error that unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness are the very same thing. Granted that this is hard to do because love and forgiveness overlap. One help is to recognize that the state of our spiritual soul is an either- or situation. Following Baptism, we are either in the state of Sanctifying Grace or we are in the state of Mortal Sin. Because of our human nature, we need to choose which state we freely want to be in. For special circumstances, please refer to CCC, 1257-1261.

Sources: CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; CCC, 1730-1732; CCC, 356-357. The context for Adam and Original Sin is CCC, 355-421; Romans 5: 12-21; and Sirach 15: 11-20.

Please refer to post 922, Moving forward,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11474070&postcount=922

 

[OneSheep]

May I gently point out that I am not intimidated by any restrictions against using the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition for explaining Catholic teachings about Adam and Original Sin. I will continue to use the Catechism for the benefit of readers.

My sincere apology, but I am unable to “investigate” Catholic spiritual issues without the universal Catholic Catechism. Thank you for the offer to do that, but I must decline.

For the benefit of readers, I will continue presenting information about various spiritual topics mentioned on this thread in a discussion format. That way, I can be corrected with better insights from Catholic teachings.

My first concern is the idea that God’s forgiveness is unconditional. We must be extra careful to avoid the error that unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness are the very same thing. Granted that this is hard to do because love and forgiveness overlap. One help is to recognize that the state of our spiritual soul is an either- or situation. Following Baptism, we are either in the state of Sanctifying Grace or we are in the state of Mortal Sin. Because of our human nature, we need to choose which state we freely want to be in. For special circumstances, please refer to CCC, 1257-1261.

Sources: CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889; CCC, 1730-1732; CCC, 356-357. The context for Adam and Original Sin is CCC, 355-421; Romans 5: 12-21; and Sirach 15: 11-20.

Please refer to post 922, Moving forward,
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11474070&postcount=922

In other words, if you cannot use the assertion being tested as proof of the assertion itself, you will not participate in the investigation. This is not how assertions are investigated, granny. We can drop it.

“All people sin in full knowledge because Adam and Eve sinned in full knowledge” is not an investigation into people’s motives and reasons for behaviors. It is simply repetition of the assertion. I get it, that is as far as you want to go. The reason why it is sometimes as far as people want to go is because it is painful to investigate the reasons why people sin. I understand, granny. It’s okay.

And seeing that you have refused to acknowledge that humans are subject to blindness, and have not acknowledged that we seem to have closed the topic on ignorance, it looks like those topics are done also. That’s okay, too. It was a great discussion!

As far as unconditional forgiveness goes, as I have said before, forgiveness is an act of love, and love is unconditional. You say that you retain no one’s sins, and to me, that matters more than anything else! Your heart is open to the sinner, even the unrepentant, and that is the face of God, the new evangelism, that we are to present the world, a God Who Loves and Forgives Everyone, just like Granny does! This is far more important than any discussion of what happened thousands of years ago.

Seeing people’s ignorance and blindness is a means of helping us understand and forgive. This is obviously not the case for you, but praise God that you can forgive everyone you hold anything against anyway! You have been given a gift. To me, it helps a lot to understand why people sin, but it isn’t important to you - whatever you do obviously works!

God Bless you, Granny, and Bless your advent season.

 

[grannymh]

“All people sin in full knowledge because Adam and Eve sinned in full knowledge” is not an investigation into people’s motives and reasons for behaviors. "

Of course, this is not an investigation into people’s motives and reasons for behavior. Nonetheless, it does need a tiny clarification regarding God’s knowledge of us as individuals. *All people sin in full knowledge? *We are not a " sin crowd" simply listening to Jesus’ words on His cross. We have an one-on-one personal relationship with our Lord and Savior.

Adam did understand what his Original Sin would do. (Genesis 2: 15-17) The one and only Original Sin shattered *both *Adam’s individual relationship with Divinity and also humanity’s relationship with Divinity. (CCC, 404-405; CCC, 399)) Today, we see the similarity in that Mortal Sin shatters the individual’s relationship with Divinity.

“Mortal” is a word we need to bring back to the Catholic vocabulary. Just saying “sin” does not give the full significance of having one’s state of Sanctifying Grace destroyed. (CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889) When we are talking about the spiritual aspects of God’s forgiveness, it is important that we understand that it is Mortal Sin which is involved. Because it is Mortal Sin, there is the basic situation that the state of Mortal Sin and the state of Sanctifying Grace do not exist simultaneously in one soul. Making a choice between the two states is an important condition for God’s forgiveness. If we freely choose the state of Mortal Sin, God continues to love us and continually calls us back to the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[OneSheep]

Not really sure what you mean by “am i a different sort of person” because we are all different from each other?
Now if I was to say “I’m so much better than this person because I don’t do half the things they do” then i’d know i was lying to myself.

That is what I’m talking about. But I wouldn’t say “lying to myself”, because that implies an intent to self-deceive. What I am saying is that we do naturally sense that we are “good” when we do all that our consciences tell us to do, just as the opposite is appears true when we do not follow our conscience.

It is a natural phenomenon, and it is exactly the way our conscience is meant to work.

Yes I’ve “trained” myself to avoid certain behaviours because I was worried what people would think, (not so much now i’m older!) I like to make a good impression, to work to the best of my ability and provide a good service for a company I may work for, or now for my own customers.

Me too! All stuff to make our conscience happy, and increase my status level among those around me. Sure, there are other motives involved too, such as empathy, but so is the conscience involved, and desire for control or status.

I don’t see you as selfish to want to help fix the world, help people look deeper into creation and God, I see this as selfless.

Here, I politely disagree. To me, there is no such thing as a selfless act. Everything I do benefits my self in some way. If I do something that meets the needs of my children, then I share their happiness. The same is true for what I do for anyone. It is really impossible for me to not gain from doing for others.

To me, self-love expands to others, all others. The only people that self-love does not expand to are the ones I hold something against, but that is one reason why forgiveness is so important.

Maybe people who don’t have some sense of God may think when they sin they might get away with it, not people who believe because we know God see’s everything.

In either case, it is saying that people only avoid sin when fear is absent. However, all of us who grow spiritually eventually come to the point that fear is much less involved; empathy is the guide.

Yes try to understand why the person sinned, not many people want to do this, they just want people to be punished for the crime.

Nobody “wants” to do this, really. It takes a discipline to reflect, pray, and learn how to understand people. Such discipline leads me to understand, and such understanding always helps me to forgive.

The natural tendency of the conscience, in my own spirituality, is to block out understanding, and especially empathy, toward those I condemn. This is why the call to forgive is so important, it is a call to go beyond our nature, to forgive even though the other has not repented.

 

[simpleas]

That is what I’m talking about. But I wouldn’t say “lying to myself”, because that implies an intent to self-deceive. What I am saying is that we do naturally sense that we are “good” when we do all that our consciences tell us to do, just as the opposite is appears true when we do not follow our conscience.

It is a natural phenomenon, and it is exactly the way our conscience is meant to work.

Me too! All stuff to make our conscience happy, and increase my status level among those around me. Sure, there are other motives involved too, such as empathy, but so is the conscience involved, and desire for control or status.

Here, I politely disagree. To me, there is no such thing as a selfless act. Everything I do benefits my self in some way. If I do something that meets the needs of my children, then I share their happiness. The same is true for what I do for anyone. It is really impossible for me to not gain from doing for others.
To me, self-love expands to others, all others. The only people that self-love does not expand to are the ones I hold something against, but that is one reason why forgiveness is so important.

In either case, it is saying that people only avoid sin when fear is absent. However, all of us who grow spiritually eventually come to the point that fear is much less involved; empathy is the guide.

Nobody “wants” to do this, really. It takes a discipline to reflect, pray, and learn how to understand people. Such discipline leads me to understand, and such understanding always helps me to forgive.
The natural tendency of the conscience, in my own spirituality, is to block out understanding, and especially empathy, toward those I condemn. This is why the call to forgive is so important, it is a call to go beyond our nature, to forgive even though the other has not repented.

Totally agree with forgiveness.
Not so sure about selfless acts. When i do something for someone yes i feel great, happy etc, so yes i have benefited also. But we want to feel good about ourselves, so that we project this onto other people who don’t always see goodness in each other.
If I am asked to do something for someone which don’t really want to do, but I know it will make that person happy, probably something simple, i can decided to be selfish and not do it or be selfless and do it.
I see people condemn people with words all the time on sites like facebook, their immediate reaction to something which we see as wrong, is that the person who committed the crime is evil and needs locking up. Sometimes i think that, other times i’ll think about not having enough information to give opinion as not everything is so black n white.
But yes praying must be the answer to gaining the ability to forgive.

 

[grannymh]

This is interesting from the Parable of the Lost Son, Luke 15: 11-32.

The last thing (verse 32) that the father says about his younger son is: “He was lost and has been found.” Maybe we need to ask ourselves – Who actually found that son in the distant country?" And is there a spiritual teaching about the spiritual soul in the father’s words “your brother was dead and has come to life again”?

 

[grannymh]

I think we settled the ignorance part. We are born with the “law” within, but our conscience is educated life-long. Ignorance is a relative term. Does a child “learn” something toward the education of their conscience in the womb? Possibly! We are born with an incomplete education. To me, that still says “ignorance”, but I am thinking that you attach other negatives to the word. Do you like that description better?

To answer your question, I can say that yes, ignorance is a relative term. On the other hand, “being born” is not exactly a relative term. Even a baby who has died in the womb can still be “born” as a person with a human nature. This fact leads to the issue which concerns automatic blindness as part of human nature. My concern is connected with the fact that we are born with a rational intellect. Therefore, our spiritual soul at our birth does not have automatic blindness in the spiritual sense of our soul. Naturally, as we mature we can distort our conscience so that it becomes blind and ignorant to certain truths taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

When a baby is born it is not with a tabula rasa {a blank slate], but more one containing a list of potential traits, if given time and developing awareness. In it’s earliest times it is intellectually incapable of sinning and therefore how can it be a sinner? ‘Suffer/permit little children to come unto Me, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven’.

 

[grannymh]

I think we settled the ignorance part. We are born with the “law” within, but our conscience is educated life-long. Ignorance is a relative term. Does a child “learn” something toward the education of their conscience in the womb? Possibly! We are born with an incomplete education. To me, that still says “ignorance”, but I am thinking that you attach other negatives to the word. Do you like that description better?

As far as “automatic blindness” goes, you are unwilling to admit that any blindness ever happens, so we cannot begin to discuss whether it is automatic or not. Stalemate.

So, this is the way this will proceed:

For starters, the CCC says that A&E committed mortal sin, and mortal sin is defined as “with full knowledge”. This is the assertion that is being investigated.

If we talk about Adam’s mortal sin, it will proceed as follows:

OneSheep: So, let us begin the investigation. Why did Adam sin?

Granny: It is not much concern to me why Adam sinned. What is of more concern to me is (insert red herring here).

OneSheep: Well, we cannot determine if Adam had full knowledge unless we investigate why he sinned.

Granny: We already know that he sinned, and that he had full knowledge, it says so in the CCC.

This brings us back to the preliminary that I highlighted in green above. I almost wrote, in my previous post, “any example but Adam” but I thought “No, she won’t do it again, will she?” You did.

So, we can investigate Adam, but in order to do so, you must not use assertions from the CCC, because those are the very assertions being investigated. We are talking about understanding human behavior, Granny. This is not a new concept. As I mentioned before, St. Augustine did the same investigation.

Are you saying that the only sin you can say anything about is that of Adam and Eve? Isn’t sin obvious in the world? Pick one, pick something that people do to each other today, that way we do not have to enter a creation myth.

The highlighted sentence needs to be examined in the light of civil discourse.

From post 920.
“So, we can investigate Adam, but in order to do so,** you must not use assertions from the CCC,** because those are the very assertions being investigated. We are talking about understanding human behavior, Granny.”

The possibility of abusing civil discourse exists because the method of examining an “assertion” from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *would need, in all fairness, an examination of the “assertions” of the sources of information which are found in the footnotes of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Obviously, denying access to the various CCC “assertions”, such as footnotes and those “assertions” in the Catechism’s Glossary, prevents proper civil discourse regarding the whole picture of Catholic truths.

My sincere apology for the “circle” confusion regarding “assertions” and denying use of “assertions”, Perhaps looking at the denial of Catholic Catechism as a “catch 22” would aid in understanding the problem. Regardless, denying a defender of the Catholic Faith the use of its Catechism is weird.

Furthermore, on a Catholic Forum, it should be a priority to search out the Catholic Catechism.

In addition, it should be obvious that the ultimate source of Catholic teachings is Divine Revelation from God, from the beginning of human history to Christ Jesus - “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation” on page 22 of the Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 65-67. For more information, please read chapter14 of the Gospel of John.

When one has been asked in other posts not to speak from a book aka the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, and then one is denied the opportunity to use that book …one wonders…

 

[simpleas]

“All people sin in full knowledge because Adam and Eve sinned in full knowledge” is not an investigation into people’s motives and reasons for behaviors. "

Of course, this is not an investigation into people’s motives and reasons for behavior. Nonetheless, it does need a tiny clarification regarding God’s knowledge of us as individuals. *All people sin in full knowledge? *We are not a " sin crowd" simply listening to Jesus’ words on His cross. We have an one-on-one personal relationship with our Lord and Savior.

Adam did understand what his Original Sin would do. (Genesis 2: 15-17) The one and only Original Sin shattered *both *Adam’s individual relationship with Divinity and also humanity’s relationship with Divinity. (CCC, 404-405; CCC, 399)) Today, we see the similarity in that Mortal Sin shatters the individual’s relationship with Divinity.

“Mortal” is a word we need to bring back to the Catholic vocabulary. Just saying “sin” does not give the full significance of having one’s state of Sanctifying Grace destroyed. (CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889) When we are talking about the spiritual aspects of God’s forgiveness, it is important that we understand that it is Mortal Sin which is involved. Because it is Mortal Sin, there is the basic situation that the state of Mortal Sin and the state of Sanctifying Grace do not exist simultaneously in one soul. Making a choice between the two states is an important condition for God’s forgiveness. If we freely choose the state of Mortal Sin, God continues to love us and continually calls us back to the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.

If we have a one to one relationship with Jesus, can we be free to make our own minds up with regards to mortal sin? As long as our conscience is a formed one?

The ccc teaches us much about moral standards, which can only be a good thing, but someone said to me lately when I was investigating some of the teaching by ccc, that it places the bar very high. I think this can be true, if we try to live up to all that is taught in the ccc i think we can push away from it more. Unless we become a monk or nun living away from society and placing our thoughts and actions only for God.

Like you say about not just saying sin, but calling it mortal sin, I didn’t realise a certain sin was an actual mortal sin until recently. But even now knowing the ccc teaches it is a mortal sin i find it hard to accept.

Take also missing sunday mass or holy days of obligation, I can see it as sin if you have placed something else to do above coming to church to praise God on his most holy days, (unless you are ill) but saying it is a mortal sin, which is death of the soul, is very scary, and slightly less believable to many people of today.

Seems many see the church has lost control of its flock, it can no longer frighten people with stories of hell etc, because people have more access to knowledge via internet, the media etc.

Any thoughts anyone?

 

[fhansen]

If we have a one to one relationship with Jesus, can we be free to make our own minds up with regards to mortal sin? As long as our conscience is a formed one?

The ccc teaches us much about moral standards, which can only be a good thing, but someone said to me lately when I was investigating some of the teaching by ccc, that it places the bar very high. I think this can be true, if we try to live up to all that is taught in the ccc i think we can push away from it more. Unless we become a monk or nun living away from society and placing our thoughts and actions only for God.

Like you say about not just saying sin, but calling it mortal sin, I didn’t realise a certain sin was an actual mortal sin until recently. But even now knowing the ccc teaches it is a mortal sin i find it hard to accept.

Take also missing sunday mass or holy days of obligation, I can see it as sin if you have placed something else to do above coming to church to praise God on his most holy days, (unless you are ill) but saying it is a mortal sin, which is death of the soul, is very scary, and slightly less believable to many people of today.

Seems many see the church has lost control of its flock, it can no longer frighten people with stories of hell etc, because people have more access to knowledge via internet, the media etc.

Any thoughts anyone?

Maybe humanity is arriving at a point where obedience either won’t come at all, or it will come for only the right reason: that we actually love God and neighbor.

 

[grannymh]

Take also missing sunday mass or holy days of obligation, I can see it as sin if you have placed something else to do above coming to church to praise God on his most holy days, (unless you are ill) but saying it is a mortal sin, which is death of the soul, is very scary, and slightly less believable to many people of today.

This has been our family’s traditional “Trim granny’s Christmas tree day”. The grannykids make ornaments and we all eat pizza on paper plates.
I have told my adult kids that they are duty bound to bring me a live Christmas tree each year.

Consequently, I am exhausted from the fun which is my excuse for not replying to your questions right away. However, I have been personally searching about the obligation to participate in the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Being old does not stop my curiosity even about things that I have agreed with since I was a youngun. Here is a link to a CAF thread on the subject. I have procrastinated reading it, except for a few posts which were positive about it.

I need to search the Catechism more; however, here is a quick thought from CCC, 357. We are to offer God “a response of faith and love…” This seems to be our positive action for this information in CCC, 356. God calls us to share, by knowledge and love in His own life.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=812600

 

[OneSheep]

The highlighted sentence needs to be examined in the light of civil discourse.

From post 920.
“So, we can investigate Adam, but in order to do so,** you must not use assertions from the CCC**, because those are the very assertions being investigated. We are talking about understanding human behavior, Granny.”

The possibility of abusing civil discourse exists because the method of examining an “assertion” from the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *would need, in all fairness, an examination of the “assertions” of the sources of information which are found in the footnotes of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Obviously, denying access to the various CCC “assertions”, such as footnotes and those “assertions” in the Catechism’s Glossary, prevents proper civil discourse regarding the whole picture of Catholic truths.

My sincere apology for the “circle” confusion regarding “assertions” and denying use of “assertions”, Perhaps looking at the denial of Catholic Catechism as a “catch 22” would aid in understanding the problem. Regardless, denying a defender of the Catholic Faith the use of its Catechism is weird.

Furthermore, on a Catholic Forum, it should be a priority to search out the Catholic Catechism.

In addition, it should be obvious that the ultimate source of Catholic teachings is Divine Revelation from God, from the beginning of human history to Christ Jesus - “Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation” on page 22 of the Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 65-67. For more information, please read chapter14 of the Gospel of John.

When one has been asked in other posts not to speak from a book aka the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, and then one is denied the opportunity to use that book …one wonders…

It is a matter of proving a point, granny, one does not state a premise to prove the same premise.

Sure, you can use the CCC all you want. However, if you are trying to prove that ignorance and/or blindness are not involved in all sin, I am requesting that you not use the creation myth as a proof. If this is the only example of sin you can select, and the only “proof” you have is an assertion made concerning this myth, then it simply does not measure up.

The premise I put forth is that all sins of mankind involve blindness and/or ignorance. Choose a sin from today, granny, disprove my point in the real world, not from a myth for which the only “proof” you have are assertions without explanations or supporting evidence. Nowhere will you find that Adam knew that the consequence of his sin would weigh on billions of lives, which brings us back to the OP.

Pick an example from today if you want to have a real discussion. We don’t live in the myth that took place thousands of years ago, if it happened at all. It is a story, Granny. It is not to be taken literally. We don’t believe in “gods”. I am not discussing this aspect, though, because it would be beating a dead horse.

I repeat, there is really no need for the discussion. I am fully satisfied that by the action of your unconditional forgiveness, as well as my own, we are showing the world that God forgives unconditionally. If you would like to continue saying that God does not do this, it won’t matter. Your actions mean more, and I am grateful.

 

[grannymh]

.

I repeat, there is really no need for the discussion. I am fully satisfied that by the action of your unconditional forgiveness, as well as my own, ***we ***are showing the world that God forgives unconditionally. If you would like to continue saying that God does not do this, it won’t matter. Your actions mean more, and I am grateful.

I put we in bold to let readers know that I am only a “one” person human granny and not part of a we who are showing the world that God forgives unconditionally – that would be a betrayal of my belief in Catholicism. If anything, I am showing that forgiveness is necessary from a human position. I have no power to change God’s decisions about bringing a “deliberately lost” soul back to the state of Sanctifying Grace. We need to keep in mind that the state of Sanctifying Grace and the state of Mortal Sin are an either - or free choice by the human person.

 

[grannymh]

If we have a one to one relationship with Jesus, can we be free to make our own minds up with regards to mortal sin? As long as our conscience is a formed one?

Then the next question is – formed according to who’s standards? Jesus was pretty clear about choosing the “narrow gate” of God’s commands. This means that while we are free to choose sin, we are not free to change sin into good acts.

The ccc teaches us much about moral standards, which can only be a good thing, but someone said to me lately when I was investigating some of the teaching by ccc, that it places the bar very high. I think this can be true, if we try to live up to all that is taught in the ccc i think we can push away from it more. Unless we become a monk or nun living away from society and placing our thoughts and actions only for God.

The bar is high no matter who we are. What really counts is that we use our abilities and talents to do the best that we can. Not all of us can be a monk or nun. Some of us need to produce the next generation. If none of us followed that vocation…

 

[simpleas]

Then the next question is – formed according to who’s standards? Jesus was pretty clear about choosing the “narrow gate” of God’s commands. This means that while we are free to choose sin, we are not free to change sin into good acts.

The bar is high no matter who we are. What really counts is that we use our abilities and talents to do the best that we can. Not all of us can be a monk or nun. Some of us need to produce the next generation. If none of us followed that vocation…

How nice to be having some seasonal fun with your grandchildren
No worries on not getting back straight away, i’ve probably been alittle impatience and getting carried away with my thoughts.

Probably our own standards? I need to think about how I can explain my question, so i’ll return to that.
But one thing about it is, The Ten commandments seem pretty clear cut to me, yet the church seems to impose other things in with them, making it even harder…not that i’m saying we should have it easy…but that fear factor and contol of the masses pops into my head.

 

[grannymh]

“To punish or not to punish”
That is the question.

Has anyone made a list of what would happen if God did not punish Adam for his Original Sin? Here is the start of a list.

In Washington, D.C., everyone who worked for the government would not get a ticket for driving through a red light.

Humans could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Purgatory would show Z-rated movies at noon.

Only beauty queens could live in the Midwest.

Granny’s kids would have to pay $1,000.00 for her Christmas tree.

 

[grannymh]

“To punish or not to punish”
That is the question.

Has anyone made a list of what would happen if God did not punish Adam for his Original Sin? Here is the start of a list.

In Washington, D.C., everyone who worked for the government would not get a ticket for driving through a red light.

Humans could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Purgatory would show Z-rated movies at noon.

Only beauty queens could live in the Midwest.

Granny’s kids would have to pay $1,000.00 for her Christmas tree.

When talking about Original Sin and God punishing humanity, it seems like we always find ourselves:banghead:

Post 940 is a tongue-in-cheek attempt to look at Original Sin from different angles.
Perhaps go around that brick wall.

A list of what would happen if God did not punish Adam for his Original Sin…with a reality statement below each point.

1. In Washington, D.C., everyone who worked for the government would not get a ticket for driving through a red light.

With Adam being one person in whom is all humankind “as one body of one man,” we are all part of one group no matter what our job is or our amount of education or our singing ability. We share the effects of Original Sin so we can cry on each other’s shoulder when we get a traffic ticket or, as in real life, have serious sufferings.

2. Humans could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Could we really be superman or superwoman or supergranny with a non-wounded nature? That question will take some soul searching.

3. Purgatory would show Z-rated movies at noon.

Because God loves all of us as descendants of Adam, we all have the same 10 commandments and when we skip them, we have the same spiritual consequences. All of us need to clean up our act in some way. The CCC, Glossary describes Purgatory, page 896 as
A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God’s friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven (1031; cf. 1472).

This is a good thing because most of us hang on to those annoying venial sins. Our “wedding garment”, as in parables, is in good condition except for some spots here and there. As for z-movies at noon, everybody knew I was kidding. Right?

4. Only beauty queens could live in the Midwest.

If Adam, who shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity, could be promised a Divine Savior, All of us don’t have to be beauty queens to have a chance for forgiveness by our Divine Savior.

5. Granny’s kids would have to pay $1,000.00 for her Christmas tree.

If there were no punishments for sin, dishonest practices would multiply. We need to face that fact of life.

 

[simpleas]

When talking about Original Sin and God punishing humanity, it seems like we always find ourselves:banghead:

Post 940 is a tongue-in-cheek attempt to look at Original Sin from different angles.
Perhaps go around that brick wall.

A list of what would happen if God did not punish Adam for his Original Sin…with a reality statement below each point.

1. In Washington, D.C., everyone who worked for the government would not get a ticket for driving through a red light.

With Adam being one person in whom is all humankind “as one body of one man,” we are all part of one group no matter what our job is or our amount of education or our singing ability. We share the effects of Original Sin so we can cry on each other’s shoulder when we get a traffic ticket or, as in real life, have serious sufferings.

2. Humans could leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Could we really be superman or superwoman or supergranny with a non-wounded nature? That question will take some soul searching.

3. Purgatory would show Z-rated movies at noon.

Because God loves all of us as descendants of Adam, we all have the same 10 commandments and when we skip them, we have the same spiritual consequences. All of us need to clean up our act in some way. The CCC, Glossary describes Purgatory, page 896 as
A state of final purification after death and before entrance into heaven for those who died in God’s friendship, but were only imperfectly purified; a final cleansing of human imperfection before one is able to enter the joy of heaven (1031; cf. 1472).

This is a good thing because most of us hang on to those annoying venial sins. Our “wedding garment”, as in parables, is in good condition except for some spots here and there. As for z-movies at noon, everybody knew I was kidding. Right?

4. Only beauty queens could live in the Midwest.

If Adam, who shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity, could be promised a Divine Savior, All of us don’t have to be beauty queens to have a chance for forgiveness by our Divine Savior.

5. Granny’s kids would have to pay $1,000.00 for her Christmas tree.

If there were no punishments for sin, dishonest practices would multiply. We need to face that fact of life.

*When talking about Original Sin and God punishing humanity, it seems like we always find ourselves:*banghead:

That is me! Can get very frustrating when something is difficult to understand, it’s a sickening feeling too, why can’t I “get this” like other people can, am I just thick? Maybe if I bang my head on a brick wall I might awaken!

 

[simpleas]

Own standards.
If a person believes they have good conscience and have what they would regard as a strong relationship with Jesus, aren’t they capable of making a decision on what might be morally acceptable and what would not be.
I’m not sure on how we think of ourselves as human beings with an ability to think for ourselves, but not to get carried away and therefore disregard Gods teachings.

Like the example of missing mass on a sunday. Mortal sin. Even one time. Yet if our relationship with Jesus is strong, we can spend time in prayer on that sunday and still keep holy the sabbath?

If i’m right the church says that catholics should receive confession and communion at least once a year. Not sure what message this sends out to lapsed catholics, why only once a year, you would be in grave mortal sin if you missed mass every sunday barr one in the year…