Original Sin

[grannymh]

Please, do not veer away from the standard Catholic view of the O.S. story if it makes sense to you. Do you see the theme in my response? “Seek and you will find”.

Goodness gracious!

I cannot imagine myself seeking anything other than the Catholic Church — just because the truth of Original Sin is hard for my brain to comprehend from a human point of view or because the “story” does not agree with the way that I want the world to work.

 

[OneSheep]

When I said “if my ingroup teaches me unconditional forgiveness”, I rather fantasized about a ideal situation where this teaching would become indeed “mainstream” No, I didn’t and I don’t have such an ideal ingroup.

Okay, you just started a such a group. Count me in.

Having a disfunctional family…

The last one was that I left my mother when she was ill, despite of her asking me to stay, and when I came back she was dead.

I can only imagine the pain and guilt.

The guilt was such that I didn’t want to be forgiven by God; I only wanted her to forgive me, I wanted God to forgive her (as she died without having received any sacrament) and I wanted to be punished instead of her. I have spent many months trying to rediscover what I had been taught, as a cradle Catholic, about death, indulgences, purgatory, hell, redemption. I was terrified by a lot of the pre-VII literature… and then I got lost, because I realized that I didn’t understand anymore why God needed the violent death of Jesus so can He could offer us redemption, after the fall of Adam and Eve. I could totally identify, instead, with the cruelty of those who had crucified Jesus and I understood that they really didn’t know what they were doing, so to me, intuitively, the Crucifixion was the supreme way to show how we are, how limited and clouded our mind can be. A lesson in humbling? Yes, surely. But how about a supreme lesson in forgiveness, too, as Jesus said so clearly on the cross? That one dawned on me later, after other various chaotic and contradictory readings - Orthodox writings, Gnostic literature, Benedict XVI’s Spe Salvi, even Bishop Spong, many other texts about atonement and Eucharist, but also Traditionalist reflections on how the Church should restore the emphasis on Fear, Sacrifice and Punishment (an example here).

Probably the decisive elements in this awful “journey” were 1) that for some reason I couldn’t have access to Confession and Eucharist (so I couldn’t even think about finding peace, consolation) and 2) that I’ve managed to read the diary of my mother and through her eyes I have slowly understood the kind of unconditional love and forgiveness of a parent towards children and her own thoughts about the endless generosity of God. Now I could never think again about God as separated or separable from us, like an ancient tyrant who looks from above at his slaves. And I know that this is the Kingdom of God, as Jesus said: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you”. Jesus didn’t come to open a new cycle of blame and violence by his death, but to change the model of relationships based on debt and payment into a model based on grace and gift and to transform the fear and hostility among people into love and unity. It surely can sound like a platitude until it truly hits you, so to speak.

Amazing. Wow. So, did you come to a point of forgiving Adam and Eve?

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you.

Thank you for putting together some of the basic spiritual problems which occur in the absence of a sound understanding of the reality of Original Sin.

While I have already discovered some of those spiritual problems, the idea that at the center of the conscience is what can be best described as a “personal rulebook” is to date the most startling problem so far.

It sounds like my statement of “personal rulebook” has violated your personal rulebook. Did you think to yourself “I am going to have an emotional reaction to this”, and then proceed to scream, or was your reaction more automatic? Be honest now…

Now, you will have to admit that not everyone will have the same reaction to my statement. Some people may find it atrocious, others may agree, and some may have no reaction whatsoever. Your reaction to my statement is your reaction, so take ownership of it! Can you own the fact that you are speaking from your own standpoint, your own conscience, your own experience, or are you claiming to speak for the whole Church?

Everyone’s conscience is formed in slightly different ways, that is reality. That does not mean that morality is relative. The crowd who hung Jesus were acting from their conscience. Jesus saw their blindness.

So, in your view, I lack a sound understanding of Original Sin. You have a right to your opinion. Can you forgive my opinion? I have shown how my opinion is based on a God who forgives unconditionally. Can you forgive? I am beginning to wonder, “why does Grannymh never answer my questions about her forgiveness of others?” are you still avoiding the call? Did you know that refusing the call to forgive is considered a sin against the Spirit? If you are holding grudges, let go and forgive! Jesus calls us to a life free of such.

 

[simpleas]

The idea of non-believers who live morally going to heaven is not new. The idea that there isn’t a hell is not Catholic doctrine.

Well, yes it can make sense, and I have explained how it makes sense to me. The question is, does the idea of a never-ending punishment make sense to you? What do you believe at this time? When we have not forgiven everyone, then it makes sense that God hasn’t either. When we have forgiven everyone, it makes sense that God has also.

Please, do not veer away from the standard Catholic view of the O.S. story if it makes sense to you. Do you see the theme in my response? “Seek and you will find”.

The key part of what you say in this paragraph is “they just enjoy the power”. Can you forgive yourself for enjoying power?

Let us go back to the question. It is not “just” anything, it is not simple. Why do people murder and abuse? Answer: we are blinded, automatically, by resentment and desire. Our empathy is blocked. So, perhaps you have more self-control than people who abuse and murder, and that is great! However, are we “better”? I have made the painful admission that I am quite capable of abuse and murder. I have learned to forgive, and I repent from the desires that lead to blindness. I am not “better”, but I have a different set of beliefs and experiences.

To me, human laws are the collective of our personal rulebooks. It is generally stuff we agree on. I am referring to when we personally judge others, which we all do, and Jesus asks us not to do. To me, my judging is so automatic that I cannot stop it from happening. When I come aware that I have judged, then I forgive. This is a matter of discipline. We have to support one another on this: Brother, I need your support when it is obvious that I am judging someone and I don’t have a clue. Point out my blindness, and encourage me to forgive.

True, but if we hold anything against Hitler, we are called to forgive him. Our media and history books do not encourage this, but it is our calling. If a person has never held anything against Hitler, he should read about the holocaust or go to a holocaust museum. Knowing about the atrocities should be part of every modern human’s knowledge base.

No the idea of never ending punishment doesn’t make sense to me.
To be honest I don’t know what i believe at this time, hence my ongoing questions!

God only forgives people if we forgive them? Doesn’t that put us on the same level as God? I mean God forgives ALL, even people we can’t forgive for whatever reason. (note i am not speaking of myself or anyone else on here)

Our Lords prayer
Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those us trespass against us.

So if a person fails to forgive someone, then God will not forgive that person of their sin?

What power are you talking about that i would need to forgive myself for?

Yes you are quite right, we can judge people very quickly, but then realise our fault.

 

[OneSheep]

When you have the tendency to punish yourself, you 1) see anything that could alleviate your guilt as a cynical attempt to find excuses and 2) invent new reasons for accusing yourself. So you don’t want to accept that something that you’ve done when you were 20 can’t be judged by the same standards like when you are 30; you blame yourself even for this immaturity and reject the idea that this is something natural.

Couldn’t have said it better myself! I love the “you’re just making excuses” part. When we say “you are making excuses”, we are making the accusation that a person is trying to say something in order to avoid some type of consequence. The problem is that when our mind (conscience, what have you) says "any type of explanation is suspicious and is to be condo

St Augustine once thought that the original, perfect man from the “city of God” could even rationally control the movement of his genitals, just because St Augustine was disgusted with his own sexual sins and considered the spontaneity of arousal as a defect caused by the Fall.

I think I could listen to your analysis for hours. I tried working my way through parts of the “city of God”, but found that I pretty much had to understand what he said there in the context of what he already wrote in Confessions. St Augustine is amazing. He knew the path, but ran into many roadblocks. (not that I don’t!) He was an incredible spiritual guide, but had trouble following his own guidance. I would love to learn more about what you gleaned from the City of God.

Plus: nobody likes to think about himself as less rational than he thought he was and to admit that there are other natural forces which determine his behavior in surprising ways and that he can’t shift the blame to “the evil one” or to Adam and Eve for each wrongdoing. It takes a great deal to be honest, to learn not to fall into these 2 traps anymore and to see that, using the biblical words, “And God saw that it was good”.

Do I say that I am ready to leave the forces of my nature to manifest freely from now on? No. Every good tool for survival can transform itself into a devastatingly bad force if left unchecked. So where do I stop? How can I throw the bath water without throwing the child as well and ending up by hating myself, my body, my instincts, all humans, all the world? Well, it’s a matter of trial an error, a matter of growing up and understanding ourselves and the world better.

To me, to use the vernacular, it is a matter of repentance. But forgiveness, too, is a repentance, a repentance from the (occasional) tyranny of the conscience. But is any force ever a “bad” force? All the forces come from God, their “badness” is the illusion caused by my own resentment. I asked Fr. Richard Rohr once, “why is it that our own religion remains so dualistic?” He said (paraphrased) that we lack the language to speak about our universe in non-dualistic terms. He did not have time to talk to me, but I beg to differ, we do have the language! We could say that there is no such thing as a “bad” person, that there is no such thing as an “evil” force. All comes from God. As Aquinas said, the problem arises in our choices, not in the appetites themselves.

Like I said elsewhere on CAF, to me the most striking thing that Pope Francis ever said was his insistence at the Angelus of March 17th: “Never forget this: The Lord *never *gets tired of forgiving us, never! It is we who get tired of asking for forgiveness!” Is this forgiveness conditioned, like some saints say - we are only adopted sons, He can look at us only through the Blood of Christ, otherwise we are disgusting in His eyes and we deserve hell by default because of the consequences of the Fall of Adam and Eve? I’m afraid that the very context of the violent death of Jesus impedes me to think this way anymore.

I love Pope Francis. To me, it is not the violence of Jesus’ death that is as moving as His forgiveness of the unrepentant, His showing us how to forgive, and His showing us the Father’s unconditional love. The violence is part of the latter, I think.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, I have read it last week - it’s one of the most interesting threads on CAF.
My bible has a note about “How could you conspire to *test *the Spirit of the Lord?”, explaining that the verb “peirazo” is used here and elsewhere (Acts 15:10; Heb 3:9) to denote “the action of man who tests God to see if He is indeed omnipotent, if He sees the sin and leaves it unpunished”. So, again, we are invited to think that God has justly punished Ananias and Sapphira through the hands of Peter…

My opinion, honestly? On one hand, the new church had to issue rules and to enforce them, to ensure unity and obedience according to the perennial tribal mentality. The moral of the story was “Great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things”. Point taken; no more trespassings! Could Peter have said “Go, and sin no more”? Yes, but perhaps such an attitude would have been deemed as detrimental to the survival and growth of the tribe/community/church. So gone are the days when Peter had understood the forgiveness of Jesus and had chose to live, instead of killing himself out of guilt, like Judas. On the other hand, this story is not different from various OT stories that show how disobedience of various members of the tribe or the attacks of other peoples are promptly punished by God - only that here Peter speaks explicitly on behalf of God. There’s a sinister song of the Iron Guard that says “God is on our side - understand it, ye peoples, and bow!” When a tribe/community/church is struggling to survive and grow, the idea that “God is on our side” (and against “their/your side”) comes naturally as a defence mechanism.

All the more means of understanding and forgiving Peter. I really don’t think Peter was thinking in terms that saying “go, and sin no more” would be detrimental. I think Peter reacted (overreacted), and did not think to forgive. Peter thinks he is speaking explicitly on behalf of God, as many do in the OT.

Hmmm. Gone were the days that Peter understood the forgiveness of Jesus? Maybe, but how does one reverse understanding? I’ll have to give that one a think. Did he rely on his overreactive conscience to keep himself from lying, after the experience he had of lying to Jesus? Did he ever actually forgive himself for lying to Jesus? I may need to read Peter’s letters again. Peter was so… human.

 

[grannymh]

It sounds like my statement of “personal rulebook” has violated your personal rulebook. Did you think to yourself “I am going to have an emotional reaction to this”, and then proceed to scream, or was your reaction more automatic? Be honest now…

I did use in my post 233. Perhaps I should have used :bigyikes: instead.

My screams were heard across the state line.

Unfortunately, I do not have any kind of a “personal rulebook” substituting for my conscience. I prefer this reasonable explanation which goes along with the belief in a rational spiritual soul.

The human conscience is a function of the intellect apprehending the essence of some act in terms of its relationship to the true end of man. It is simply the intellectual act or trained ability to judge between right or wrong. A properly informed conscience is in accord with the commandments of God.

 

[OneSheep]

Just a note for the reader: The reason why the conscience is part of the “original sin” discussion is because I am positing that the creation story, the basis of “original sin”, is more about the human acquisition of conscience than God’s actual attitude or behavior toward humanity. In addition, that our faith does not depend on the standard definition of original sin.

I did use in my post 233. Perhaps I should have used :bigyikes: instead.

My screams were heard across the state line.

Unfortunately, I do not have any kind of a “personal rulebook” substituting for my conscience. I prefer this reasonable explanation which goes along with the belief in a rational spiritual soul.

The human conscience is a function of the intellect apprehending the essence of some act in terms of its relationship to the true end of man. It is simply the intellectual act or trained ability to judge between right or wrong. A properly informed conscience is in accord with the commandments of God.

I don’t think I am explaining well enough. You seem somewhat to agree with me, if you
agree with the CCC. “Substitution” indicates that you think that the content of the conscience is simply deposited by God into our minds. This is not what the CCC says. Are you equating God and our conscience?

Please note the words “properly informed conscience”. Can you show me two humans with the same conscience formation? No, everyone has somewhat different consciences. I mentioned that at the center of the conscience is the “personal rulebook”; we could call it “the rulebook”, but “personal” is more descriptive. God gives us the hardware, but our experiences and exposures give us the software. Our conscience is very personal, even though it is a gift from God. For example, from the sound of it, “unconditional forgiveness” is not an allowed part of your “informed conscience” but I do not have a personal rule against forgiving unconditionally. Is one of our consciences “improperly informed”? I think my chances are about 1 in 20 that you will answer that question…

The findings which show that the conscience is very much tied up with our emotions is not totally contrary to the CCC. Yes, we can somewhat inform our conscience with the intellect. In addition, to say that the conscience is totally emotional is not accurate. When I say our personal rulebook is the center, I mean that it is the trigger point that puts everything else (including 's) into action. Our emotional reactions are also part of the content of our conscience. You want to know a really great exercise in self-awareness? Every time you have a negative emotional reaction to something, try to figure out your rule that was violated. I have a list of personal rules I have found in one of my journals. Most are simple, such as “don’t say something disrespectful”. Every once in awhile, I find a new rule!

I am wondering, what is it about “personal rulebook” that triggers an emotional reaction of your conscience? The question is not accusatory, it is a matter of interest.

Grannymh will probably not answer that last question, so if you are reading this and had the same reaction as granny, feel free to answer!

 

[OneSheep]

God only forgives people if we forgive them? Doesn’t that put us on the same level as God? I mean God forgives ALL, even people we can’t forgive for whatever reason. (note i am not speaking of myself or anyone else on here)

You make a good point, but we humans are limited to psychological projection. If we cannot forgive a certain person, then we cannot fathom that God would do so. If we can forgive a certain person, we cannot imagine that God cannot. I cannot imagine that God doesn’t forgive someone.

Our Lords prayer
Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those us trespass against us.

So if a person fails to forgive someone, then God will not forgive that person of their sin?

So, along the same lines as what I said above, God forgives everyone, but if I do not forgive someone, then I will never have the surety that God forgives also. My projected god will be conditionally forgiving. Is this confusing? Feel free to get this clarified.

The Lord’s prayer contains a call to forgive. The way I learned it, when we pray “forgive us our trespasses”, we are to say these words knowing that God will do so. The “as we forgive those who trespass against us” is not a statement saying that God only forgives if we do.

What power are you talking about that i would need to forgive myself for?

here was what you said that I responded to:

We say we are no better than others, but if a person is a child abuser/murder without any mental problems, they just enjoy the power they have over their victim, do we still say we are no better than this person, knowing full well we would never abuse or murder?

I was focusing on the “enjoy the power” part of this paragraph. When you say that a person is “enjoying the power”, are you saying that enjoying power is okay, or is it unacceptable? If it is unacceptable, can you “forgive” your own desire for power, for dominance? Can we humbly admit that we all like power? Keep in mind that such abuse and murder involve more than simply “enjoying power” - blindness plays an essential role.

 

[simpleas]

You make a good point, but we humans are limited to psychological projection. If we cannot forgive a certain person, then we cannot fathom that God would do so. If we can forgive a certain person, we cannot imagine that God cannot. I cannot imagine that God doesn’t forgive someone.

So, along the same lines as what I said above, God forgives everyone, but if I do not forgive someone, then I will never have the surety that God forgives also. My projected god will be conditionally forgiving. Is this confusing? Feel free to get this clarified.

The Lord’s prayer contains a call to forgive. The way I learned it, when we pray “forgive us our trespasses”, we are to say these words knowing that God will do so. The “as we forgive those who trespass against us” is not a statement saying that God only forgives if we do.

here was what you said that I responded to:

I was focusing on the “enjoy the power” part of this paragraph. When you say that a person is “enjoying the power”, are you saying that enjoying power is okay, or is it unacceptable? If it is unacceptable, can you “forgive” your own desire for power, for dominance? Can we humbly admit that we all like power? Keep in mind that such abuse and murder involve more than simply “enjoying power” - blindness plays an essential role.

Ok, so you personally can’t imagine God would not forgive someone. Me too. Even if you at some point in your life can not forgive another for something, you believe God would still forgive them? Is that right?

I thought the Lords prayer was us acknowledging that we ask for Gods forgiveness, and we acknowledge that we in turn forgive each other.

I was trying to work out how we can admit that we are just as “bad” as someone who can with full knowledge of what they are doing, commit murder/abuse on another without guilt. No the power would be unacceptable, because they are using their power over that person to cause death/hurt. Some people may have blindness which you talk about. I’m out of my depth here!

If we believe God forgives all, do we include the unrepentant, as in people who don’t worship God, but are decent, good people. If we do, where does the teaching that we must confess sins to obtain Gods forgiveness leave us? As i said a while back, what one person believes to be a sin, another person does not. We look to the church for guidence, but even then we see differently or are" blinded "
We are unique individuals, we all have different strengths, weakness, emotions, conscience etc.

Are we wrong to have our own personal thoughts on how we believe God will treat us?

 

[OneSheep]

Ok, so you personally can’t imagine God would not forgive someone. Me too. Even if you at some point in your life can not forgive another for something, you believe God would still forgive them? Is that right?

Right, I do believe this! For example, I had a lot of trouble forgiving Osama bin Laden. I knew that I could forgive him someday, and I knew that God forgave him, but I couldn’t - yet. The element of control is so very important. That is why it is so extremely difficult, for example, for Palestinians and Israelis to forgive each other. When a situation seems out of control and there is no hope for better, the mind (conscience) keeps “pushing” the condemnation. Forgiveness is possible, but very difficult.

Your seeing that you cannot imagine God not forgiving someone is a gift from God. It means that you have forgiven everyone, and the ability to forgive is a gift. You will have plenty of opportunities to continue using this gift, though. If you are like me, you will continue to judge others. It is our nature.

I thought the Lords prayer was us acknowledging that we ask for Gods forgiveness, and we acknowledge that we in turn forgive each other.

Your explanation is so much simpler, and so much better.

I was trying to work out how we can admit that we are just as “bad” as someone who can with full knowledge of what they are doing, commit murder/abuse on another without guilt. No the power would be unacceptable, because they are using their power over that person to cause death/hurt. Some people may have blindness which you talk about. I’m out of my depth here!

All power comes from God. Our functioning conscience says “their use of power in that way is unacceptable.” and our conscience serves in helping us correct the behavior. However, there is no such thing as someone hurting someone else with full knowledge of what they are doing! Hitler is a perfect example. Hitler condemned the Jewish people in Germany, for a number of reasons. When we condemn, our brains automatically devalue (dehumanize) the people we condemn. Hitler wasn’t, in his mind, killing people, he was destroying something he saw as less than mosquitoes. I am just as capable of thinking that someone is of so little value. I saw this in the Nazis, in “terrorists”. It is an illusion. Hitler was destroying what he saw as evil. I know it is hard to believe, but it is true.

If we believe God forgives all, do we include the unrepentant, as in people who don’t worship God, but are decent, good people. If we do, where does the teaching that we must confess sins to obtain Gods forgiveness leave us? As i said a while back, what one person believes to be a sin, another person does not. We look to the church for guidence, but even then we see differently or are" blinded "
We are unique individuals, we all have different strengths, weakness, emotions, conscience etc.

I’m sorry, but I am still a little confused by this question, “where does the teaching that we must confess sins to obtain God’s forgiveness leave us?” Perhaps you could clarify a little.

Are we wrong to have our own personal thoughts on how we believe God will treat us?

Are you wondering if God will forgive you if you have your own personal thoughts about how God will treat us, or are you wondering if the Church or other people will condemn your personal thoughts? If you are wondering about God, well, I think you have already answered that above. If you are wondering about the Church, or other people, then you need to be aware of this, about the “sin of presumption”:

2092 There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit).

There are those in the Church who believe that God does not forgive unconditionally, and will use this section to condemn those who do. There is plenty of “middle ground” though. For instance, we can say that God forgives people and sends them to hell anyway, if hell is a spiritual bootcamp, a temporary place. Or, we can say that “merit” is a perceived thing, and I can certainly prove that all people have merit. On the other hand, would heaven be heaven if the blind and ignorant people there cause the same chaos as they do today? That doesn’t make any sense either to my human mind, though I do have to admit that “with God, all things are possible”. Until I can figure out how it works otherwise, to me there has to be some kind of purging process, a process by which people’s blindness is cured and ignorance abated.

Do you see how people, myself included, conclude that some people’s interpretation of the “sin of presumption” contradicts what Jesus did from the cross, forgiving the unrepentant? Don’t get me wrong, though, most of what the CCC says about the sin of presumption makes sense to me, and I think should be part of our informed conscience.

 

[grannymh]

Just a note for the reader: The reason why the conscience is part of the “original sin” discussion is because I am positing that the creation story, the basis of “original sin”, is more about the human acquisition of conscience than God’s actual attitude or behavior toward humanity. In addition, that our faith does not depend on the standard definition of original sin.

“The human acquisition of conscience.” Now that is really a great topic that is seriously connected to one’s spiritual faith. Thank you.

It really is a great idea to think seriously about the “human acquisition of conscience” especially since it is an important function belonging to rational human nature. Conscience is basically an intellectual action which studies the essence of some act in terms of human’s ultimate goal. Conscience is the ability to judge between right and wrong. Ah, one says, some, not all, people blame their conscience for leading them or pushing them to some kind of disaster. True. It is a sad truth that some, not all, people have lost sight of the marvels of the spiritual rational soul.

One of the important details, which is sometimes left out of the “Creation” story, is that when Adam was created as in the “creation story”, he faced the limitations of his material environment. Today’s popular “creation stories” are so caught up with the “evils” in the world, that it is easy to overlook all the marvels – in their reality-- of our own human nature which originally was meant to have “dominion” in the world. (Genesis 1: 26-31) When we slip away from the Catholic study of human nature, which does include Adam and Original Sin; when we slip away from Catholic answers about humanity’s relationship to Divinity, many, not all, of us lean toward substitutions which soft pedal reality. By substitutions, I mean that we alter Catholic reasoning in some way so that various human opinions can be used as substitutes for the original Divine Revelation or for some part of the original teaching. Sometimes the ploy of using half a teaching is more comforting.

Teachings about forgiveness are indeed extremely important.

Historical forgiveness can be wisely used as well as forgiveness of oneself. In regard to the full aspects of “forgiveness”, the importance of the Original Sin story is that it emphasizes the personal relationship between humans and our Creator as in Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 2: 15-17. This one-on-one relationship between God and Adam is important. Genesis 2: 19 and Genesis 3: 9. The Catholic Church teaches that the base for this one-on-one relationship is that the human creature lives in free submission to the Creator. (CCC, 410)

The crucial Catholic teaching is that we, as true humans, need to live in free submission to our Creator. Recognizing our own dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence. (CCC, 301, CCC, 396; and CCC, 410) The consequence of not living in free submission is clearly stated in Genesis 2: 17 and the Catechism chapters on human life, including sanctifying grace and mortal sin. The consequence of living in free submission to our Creator is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. (CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867)

The point all this leads to is that “forgiveness” is part of the relationship between humanity and Divinity and as such requires actions on the part of *both *the Creator and the human. Understanding that the human has the intellect and free will to respond positively and negatively to God’s call to all humanity – Understanding that God personally calls each person to share in His life, here on earth and then in heaven – Understanding that our conscience is an intellectual act of judgment – Understanding that the correct source for information about right and wrong is God Himself – all this is essential information when it comes to humans freely maintaining a forgiving relationship with God.

As for “The human acquisition of conscience.” Since conscience is an intellectual act or trained ability to judge between right or wrong, it comes as part of the immediate creation of the spiritual rational soul by God Himself. (CCC, 362-366) We, as did Adam, have a conscience from the beginning of our human self. Because humans are rational creatures, we have the freedom to either inform or form our conscience with information so that it can determine what is right or wrong in accord or not in accord with God’s plan for bringing us to Himself in true happiness.

Our will naturally seeks the greatest or ultimate good Who is our Creator. However, we are free to choose lesser goods, some beneficial, some detrimental. In any event, it is our own self who is able to choose. Like Adam, we are free to scorn our Creator. (CCC, 396-398)

It is often said that our Creator respects our decisions.

 

[OneSheep]

When we slip away from the Catholic study of human nature, which does include Adam and Original Sin; when we slip away from Catholic answers . …

Did you write this, Granny? I am a little confused. I ask you questions, and you reply with a lecture, but never answer my questions. Isn’t the forum supposed to be some kind of conversation? According to my upbringing, in the formation of my conscience, when someone asks a question, the other person answers it, or if necessary explains why they don’t answer the question. When people don’t answer, it is thought of as rude and inconsiderate. I am asking you this, Grannymh, is your refusal to answer my questions a decision guided by your conscience? If you say yes, it is obvious that we have different personal rulebooks. If you say no, then I ask that you follow your conscience rather than refusing to have a conversation with me. If you don’t answer at all, I really don’t know what to think. I request that you answer my questions, though, I would like you to consider my desire for conversation rather than lecture.

Teachings about forgiveness are indeed extremely important.

Historical forgiveness can be wisely used as well as forgiveness of oneself. In regard to the full aspects of “forgiveness”…, the importance of the Original Sin story is that it emphasizes the personal relationship… The Catholic Church teaches that the base for this one-on-one relationship is that the human creature lives in free submission to the Creator. (CCC, 410)

The crucial Catholic teaching is that we, as true humans, need to live in free submission to our Creator. Recognizing our own dependence with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence. (CCC, 301, CCC, 396; and CCC, 410) The consequence of not living in free submission is clearly stated in Genesis 2: 17 and the Catechism chapters on human life, including sanctifying grace and mortal sin. The consequence of living in free submission to our Creator is joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. (CCC, Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867)

So, what you are saying is cohesive to a certain degree. One problem lies in the words “free submission”. If God is going to close the door to heaven forever if a person does not submit, then submission is not the least bit free. This is called coercion, not freedom.

In a way, then, “the consequence of not living in free submission” is completely contradictory. However, the statement has its place. When we refuse to repent, for example, we are choosing a “death” of sorts, it is enslavement by our appetites. When we refuse to forgive, we are choosing enslavement by clinging to a grudge. These consequences make sense, because God is still with us. He is loving and forgiving us all the way through.

I understand and agree with the emphasis on personal relationship. If a person has forgiven everyone unconditionally, then the person will see that God does the same. The person has forgiven Adam, and cannot fathom that God would behave differently. Have you forgiven Adam, Grannymh? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary. If you have not forgiven him, and still hold something against him, then it is going to be very difficult to understand what I am saying.

God loves and forgives unconditionally. Banishment, some degree of separation from God by God, as what happened in the creation story, is not God’s will, it is the behavior of our conscience. Our conscience “banishes” us when we misbehave, our conscience accepts us only conditionally.

The point all this leads to is that “forgiveness” is part of the relationship between humanity and Divinity and as such requires actions on the part of *both *the Creator and the human. Understanding that the human has the intellect and free will to respond positively and negatively to God’s call to all humanity – Understanding that God personally calls each person to share in His life, here on earth and then in heaven – Understanding that our conscience is an intellectual act of judgment – Understanding that the correct source for information about right and wrong is God Himself – all this is essential information when it comes to humans freely maintaining a forgiving relationship with God.

Well stated!
(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

From grannymh:

As for “The human acquisition of conscience.” Since conscience is an intellectual act or trained ability to judge between right or wrong, it comes as part of the immediate creation of the spiritual rational soul by God Himself. (CCC, 362-366) We, as did Adam, have a conscience from the beginning of our human self. Because humans are rational creatures, we have the freedom to either inform or form our conscience with information so that it can determine what is right or wrong in accord or not in accord with God’s plan for bringing us to Himself in true happiness.

Our will naturally seeks the greatest or ultimate good Who is our Creator. However, we are free to choose lesser goods, some beneficial, some detrimental. In any event, it is our own self who is able to choose. Like Adam, we are free to scorn our Creator. (CCC, 396-398)

The problem is, Adam was not “free” to scorn his Creator. The creation story does not depict a God who forgives unconditionally. However, the creation story does accurately depict the conditionally accepting manner of our conscience.

Jesus did not “banish humanity from the garden” for hanging Him on the cross. Instead, He showed us an Abba much deeper than the conscience, a God that does not banish. I am not ruling out the necessity of some type of “cleansing” or “enlightening” before going to hea**ven, but banishment forever is not forgiveness, and it is not love. To me, any type of threat contradicts “free submission.”

It is often said that our Creator respects our decisions.

If you have a child who makes a decision out of blindness or ignorance, do you “respect” the decision? No, such a “respect” is not love. Instead, you enlighten the child.

Adam behaved out of ignorance and blindness. All sin is a matter of ignorance and blindness.

 

[grannymh]

Did you write this, Granny? I am a little confused. I ask you questions, and you reply with a lecture, but never answer my questions. Isn’t the forum supposed to be some kind of conversation? According to my upbringing, in the formation of my conscience, when someone asks a question, the other person answers it, or if necessary explains why they don’t answer the question. When people don’t answer, it is thought of as rude and inconsiderate. I am asking you this, Grannymh, is your refusal to answer my questions a decision guided by your conscience?

To clear the air.

As I stated somewhere, it is my choice to answer personal questions or not answer them. As for other questions, I may think about them and later respond in a general way in the same post or a different one. Or I cannot answer them properly because you have different views from mine.

For example, the question
“Are you equating God and our conscience?” Since your perception of conscience is unique, that question is yours, not mine. “Can you show me two humans with the same conscience formation?” You answered that question, so there was no need for me to answer it. "Is one of our consciences “improperly informed”? Personal question, no answer. “I am wondering, what is it about “personal rulebook” that triggers an emotional reaction of your conscience?” In additional to being a personal question, the conscience in a human person does not trigger an emotional reaction .FYI My screams were a figure of speech for my personal feelings.

Last question.
I am asking you this, Grannymh, is your refusal to answer my questions a decision guided by your conscience? Guided by my conscience? Personal question, no answer.

Legitimate questions refer to subject matter in some manner. This would exclude rhetorical questions.

Thank you for your patience while this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny tries to answer your questions.

 

[grannymh]

The problem is, Adam was not “free” to scorn his Creator.

While this problem Adam was not “free” to scorn his Creator is not a question, it is important to mention that the Catholic Church, in many ways, affirms that Adam could and did freely scorn his Creator.

The creation story does not depict a God who forgives unconditionally. However, the creation story does accurately depict the conditionally accepting manner of our conscience.

The creation story depicts a loving God Who, when He is scorned, sends His Son to offer atonement in humanity’s place. John 3: 16, and Chapter six, Gospel of John. This is the base or foundation for Catholic spirituality.

Obviously, there are many other interesting versions of Divine Revelation, each with its own following. All I can do is to present the truth as taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[BobCatholic]

The problem is, Adam was not “free” to scorn his Creator.

I agree that Adam’s free will was limited, and he did not truly have free will.

I think that God created Adam and Eve imperfect. And because they were not perfect, they will make mistakes.

They were either stupid, proud, or naive - those are imperfections.

God is the Great Programmer in the Sky, wrote a buggy program, which crashed, and then He punishes the program by kicking it out of the operating system.

 

[grannymh]

The* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* has paragraphs galore relating to humans/humanity. Here is a telling statement about our own personal human nature.
"The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”
(CCC, 404)

The Catholic Church views this as Divine Revelation which is confirmed in Romans 5:12-21; 1Corinthians 15: 21-22; and in the duly prepared pronouncements of Catholic doctrines by major ecumenical councils with the wisdom and guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. A list of these councils, which made Divine Revelation more explicit, starts on page 720 in the Catechism’s “Index of Citations.” For an understanding of “explicit”, please refer to Christ Jesus --“Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation” CCC, 65-67.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[OneSheep]

To clear the air.

As I stated somewhere, it is my choice to answer personal questions or not answer them. As for other questions, I may think about them and later respond in a general way in the same post or a different one. Or I cannot answer them properly because you have different views from mine.

For example, the question
“Are you equating God and our conscience?” Since your perception of conscience is unique, that question is yours, not mine. “Can you show me two humans with the same conscience formation?” You answered that question, so there was no need for me to answer it. "Is one of our consciences “improperly informed”? Personal question, no answer.

Thank you very much for clearing the air. In the future, if I ask a question that falls into one of the non-answer categories, would you mind telling me so, and explaining why? I put a lot of effort into this, obviously, and I need to know when and why I will get your silence.
It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to answer “personal questions”. I know so many people who never use their own minds, if you ask them a question about faith, they simply point to a book, like “I believe whatever this book says”. But I already know what the book says (mostly), and the book is contradictory! What I want to know is what you think, which will always be a personal answer. Answer from your heart, it is a good heart!

… “I am wondering, what is it about “personal rulebook” that triggers an emotional reaction of your conscience?” In additional to being a personal question, the conscience in a human person does not trigger an emotional reaction .FYI My screams were a figure of speech for my personal feelings.

Let me give you a few examples of something you see that may trigger an emotional reaction:

1. On TV, you see a video of a man shooting a blindfolded prisoner.
2. A woman on the street is carrying a sign that says “abortion is my right”.
3. New graffiti on a wall of your church is a gang territory symbol.
4. A driver cuts you off on the freeway.

If you are like me, when I see something that I think is wrong, my emotion of resentment is triggered. Emotion plays a very important part of the workings of our moral behavior. If the emotion is not tied in with our conscience, from where comes the emotional response? Emotion helps form our conscience, and emotion is a response to what we see as a violation of our conscience. The automatic emotional response for what we see as wrong is a gift from God.

Thank you for your patience while this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny tries to answer your questions.

I appreciate your trying to answer my questions. Please keep in mind that I am not coming from a position of attacking the Church. I love the Church and I love and appreciate Jesus as my God. What I am trying to do here is show that when we see the contradictions that drive so many people away from the faith, we can iron out those contradictions without compromising love of Church, Faith in Christ, or service to fellow humans. I am asserting that there is room in the Catholic Church for those who do not believe that God, in any way, condemned or banished Adam - or anyone else.

 

[OneSheep]

While this problem Adam was not “free” to scorn his Creator is not a question, it is important to mention that the Catholic Church, in many ways, affirms that Adam could and did freely scorn his Creator.

Granny, that line has to be seen in context. What I said there, basically, is that coercion takes all of the “free” out of “free submission”.

Does man have free will? Yes, to the degree that we are aware, we have free will. Our free will, though, is limited by our ignorance and blindness. Is a blind person free? No, he is somewhat enslaved by his limitation. (note: I am not talking about the sight-impaired)

The creation story depicts a loving God Who, when He is scorned, sends His Son to offer atonement in humanity’s place. John 3: 16, and Chapter six, Gospel of John. This is the base or foundation for Catholic spirituality.

Obviously, there are many other interesting versions of Divine Revelation, each with its own following. All I can do is to present the truth as taught by the Catholic Church.

Nothing I have said contradicts John 3:16 or John 6. What I am saying is that there is room in the Church for those of us who find primarily that God loves us (and forgives) unconditionally, which can be learned from our prayer lives. God’s unconditional love and forgiveness is a divine revelation that all of us can learn from the passion, I learned it from the Catholic Church. If there is something else that appears to contradict such love, then those contradictions have to be ironed out by the individual. For me, such “ironing out” involves dealing with contradictions between unconditional love and the story of God condemning Adam.