Original Sin

[Cruciferi]

I am going to take a lot of dissension for this; however, original sin is reproduction. When looking at original sin you have to ask the question, “What causes us to all inherit the sin?” It is because we are all born through sexual reproduction.

This does not mean it is a sinful act but an imperfect act that we must continue to perpetuate the species. To put this in perspective, Jesus was conceived without any traditional “sex”. It was virgin birth to put it accurately. This is because he could not be sullied by the imperfect method of reproduction.

Supposedly, in the Garden Adam & Eve both did not see each other’s bodies. Instead, they saw their souls. Therefore, there was not this animalistic craving for bodily gratification but instead charitable pulsations to create new life.

Another way you could look at sexual reproduction being original sin is that we are, double check this please, the only creature that is in heat 24/7/365 days a year. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?

I don’t expect anyone to pick up on this theory; however, doesn’t it sound a bit better than apples on trees?

 

[fhansen]

I am going to take a lot of dissension for this; however, original sin is reproduction. When looking at original sin you have to ask the question, “What causes us to all inherit the sin?” It is because we are all born through sexual reproduction.

This does not mean it is a sinful act but an imperfect act that we must continue to perpetuate the species. To put this in perspective, Jesus was conceived without any traditional “sex”. It was virgin birth to put it accurately. This is because he could not be sullied by the imperfect method of reproduction.

Supposedly, in the Garden Adam & Eve both did not see each other’s bodies. Instead, they saw their souls. Therefore, there was not this animalistic craving for bodily gratification but instead charitable pulsations to create new life.

Another way you could look at sexual reproduction being original sin is that we are, double check this please, the only creature that is in heat 24/7/365 days a year. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?

I don’t expect anyone to pick up on this theory; however, doesn’t it sound a bit better than apples on trees?

The Church affirms that OS is transmitted by propagation but she rejected the Augustinian notion that it had anything to do with the propriety or impropriety of the sex act. And Augustine affirmed that the first sin, itself, was simply disobedience, while he erroneously believed that in the fallen state, afterwards, the human attitude towards sex was so skewed by concupiscence that OS was somehow intrinsic to or integrated into the act-and thus passed on to their offspring.

 

[BobCatholic]

Of course Adam had free will, he chose to disobey God. He didn’t have to make that choice.

But if he had the imperfection of stupidity and he did something stupid, how much of that is his creation and how much is his choice?

But if he had the imperfection of naive and he did something naive, how much of that is his creation and how much is his choice?

But if he had the imperfection of pride and he did something prideful, how much of that is his creation and how much is his choice?

A created being can’t be perfect;

Incorrect. Angels are created perfect. And so will we when we get to heaven, we will be perfect.

Any denial by God of the ability to err and choose evil would eviscerate free will.

No, writing a buggy program only guarantees the program will crash and error out. Punishing the program for making mistakes that were part of the coding is unjust.

Suppose someone was born with the imperfection of kleptomania. And he goes around stealing. Is that his free will or is it because of the imperfection? And if he gets thrown in hell for stealing, that’s not just.

 

[vames]

Our forgiving God did not abandon Adam when he deliberately, with full knowledge, shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity. God looked for Adam, calling out to him. At the same time that God was seeking Adam to comfort him, in justice, Adam and Eve suffered the results of Original Sin.

Adam was warned only about his own death (“You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die”) at a moment when he was literally the only human being in Eden. Nothing was said about other consequences than death and nothing was said about the fate of the whole future humanity. Even when Eve appeared, none of them had any concept of “humanity”, as they had no parents, siblings or children and had no idea about what it means to transmit the consequences of their errors to their descendants, not to mention to all future generations. Then how come that Adam deliberately and with full knowledge shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity? Deliberately would mean “I will eat this forbidden fruit because my intention is to condemn not only myself, but billions of unborn man and women to a miserable life outside of Eden and then to death”. Hitler must have been a humanitarian compared to this Adam.

God looked for Adam, calling out to him. At the same time that God was seeking Adam to comfort him, in justice, Adam and Eve suffered the results of Original Sin.

To comfort him? God called out to Adam to curse him, Eve and all their descendants and to throw them out of the Garden of Eden. How is this forgiving and comforting?

 

[BobCatholic]

To comfort him? God called out to Adam to curse him, Eve and all their descendants and to throw them out of the Garden of Eden. How is this forgiving and comforting?

Because God is loving, forgiving and comforting in the spiritual sense.

That’s why Jesus Christ died on a cross to save our souls, that was the spiritual fixing up. He saved us from the spiritual punishments, and performed such an awesome act of love, forgiveness, compassion, mercy…wow. Touches my heart.

HOWEVER…

In the temporal sense…I can’t say the same. God still holds us temporally responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin.

There’s a saying: God forgives. Man may forgive. Nature never forgives.

A loving, compassionate, forgiving God throws Adam and Eve (and their descendants) into an unforgiving, uncompassionate, unloving natural habitat, which is supposed to teach us how forgiving, compassionate, and loving God is in a temporal sense? This totally contradicts the spiritual sense. It sends a confusing message at best.

This part is the most challenging part of my relationship with God. I just can’t understand this.

 

[grannymh]

Adam was warned only about his own death (“You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die”) at a moment when he was literally the only human being in Eden. Nothing was said about other consequences than death and nothing was said about the fate of the whole future humanity. Even when Eve appeared, none of them had any concept of “humanity”, as they had no parents, siblings or children and had no idea about what it means to transmit the consequences of their errors to their descendants, not to mention to all future generations. Then how come that Adam deliberately and with full knowledge shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity? Deliberately would mean “I will eat this forbidden fruit because my intention is to condemn not only myself, but billions of unborn man and women to a miserable life outside of Eden and then to death”. Hitler must have been a humanitarian compared to this Adam.

One needs to remember that Adam has a spiritual rational soul including the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, abstract concepts, and analytical thought.

To comfort him? God called out to Adam to curse him, Eve and all their descendants and to throw them out of the Garden of Eden. How is this forgiving and comforting?

One needs to remember that Adam was meant to live in joy eternal. And God, in His love for humankind, promised a Messiah. :hug1:

 

[OneSheep]

Pride, dominance, arrogance, over-control, manipulation, self-righteousness-all the things that cause problems in this world-are considered to be disorders; pride is inordinate self-love, and likewise lust is inordinate sexual appetite, gluttony inordinate desire for food, materialism inordinate desire for the things we otherwise need. God is opposed to disorder in His universe because of the harm it causes. All evil, IOW, is simply a disordered or perverted good, something that lies outside His will, all made possible by our free will, I.e. our God-given freedom to act independent of His will.

So, God gave us the hardware for a conscience to deal with uncontrolled appetites. If our conscience is formed normally, when we are promiscuous the conscience says “this is wrong, and you are garbage.” When we are addicted to food, the conscience says “this is wrong, you are a pig”. When we are gathering wealth and neglecting the poor, our conscience says “you are greedy”. The healthy conscience proceeds to condemn the individual, triggering negative emotion toward the individual himself. He feels guilty. This is the way “order” works. Our conscience, however, is not to be equated with God, which is what I am saying the creation story, and the doctrine of original sin, describe. The standard depiction of the fall, original sin, and the story of Adam and Eve do not reflect the voice of Unconditional Love. Those depictions instead reflect the voice of our God-given consciences, which love us very conditionally.

Although sin is not God’s will, God makes it all quite possible when He creates man ignorant and capable of blindness. Jesus said, “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”. The crowd was blind to Jesus’ humanity (and divinity). This “blindness” is a function of the conscience, the very conscience that God gave us to be in control of our own behaviors. When we see someone do something we see as wrong, we become blind to the person’s value and feel compelled to punish the person, just as we do to ourselves. In addition, when we are caught up in desire, we also become blind to the value of someone standing in the way. This capacity for automatic blindness (empathy blocking) has had its place in the evolution of the human species, it has helped our survival. The net effect has been positive, but God sent his Son (among other important reasons) to straighten us out, to be aware of our capacity for blindness, and to forgive those we feel negatively about. Jesus assures us that regardless what our conscience may say, God loves us, without condition.

This is how it all makes sense to me. If “original sin” is redefined to be a catch-all term, one that includes all of our innate appetites, our innate capacity for blindness, our innate ignorance, and the more problematic aspects of the conscience, among other shortcomings, then such a definition makes more sense to me. It makes sense to me that “original sin” is the inherited aspect of the human makeup that our conscience grows to resent.

Do you see a problem with this view, fhansen? I think there is plenty of room in our Church for our two views.

 

[OneSheep]

I am going to take a lot of dissension for this; however, original sin is reproduction. When looking at original sin you have to ask the question, “What causes us to all inherit the sin?” It is because we are all born through sexual reproduction.

Sexual reproduction, biologically speaking, has evolved to help the gene pool of species. Without the variation made possible by sexual reproduction, we are much more susceptible to annihilation by disease and other environmental happenings.

So, indeed, everything about the body is inherited, but God has continued to watch over our well-being by giving us traits (through evolution) that help our survival.

 

[simpleas]

Because God is loving, forgiving and comforting in the spiritual sense.

That’s why Jesus Christ died on a cross to save our souls, that was the spiritual fixing up. He saved us from the spiritual punishments, and performed such an awesome act of love, forgiveness, compassion, mercy…wow. Touches my heart.

HOWEVER…

In the temporal sense…I can’t say the same. God still holds us temporally responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin.

There’s a saying: God forgives. Man may forgive. Nature never forgives.

A loving, compassionate, forgiving God throws Adam and Eve (and their descendants) into an unforgiving, uncompassionate, unloving natural habitat, which is supposed to teach us how forgiving, compassionate, and loving God is in a temporal sense? This totally contradicts the spiritual sense. It sends a confusing message at best.

This part is the most challenging part of my relationship with God. I just can’t understand this.

It is challenging to me also. Sometimes i wonder why we need to refer to the OT scriptures because alot in there doesn’t teach me about the God i understand in the NT.
I do believe there were first parents, just understanding Gods response to their disobedience is difficult.

 

[simpleas]

I am going to take a lot of dissension for this; however, original sin is reproduction. When looking at original sin you have to ask the question, “What causes us to all inherit the sin?” It is because we are all born through sexual reproduction.

This does not mean it is a sinful act but an imperfect act that we must continue to perpetuate the species. To put this in perspective, Jesus was conceived without any traditional “sex”. It was virgin birth to put it accurately. This is because he could not be sullied by the imperfect method of reproduction.

Supposedly, in the Garden Adam & Eve both did not see each other’s bodies. Instead, they saw their souls. Therefore, there was not this animalistic craving for bodily gratification but instead charitable pulsations to create new life.

Another way you could look at sexual reproduction being original sin is that we are, double check this please, the only creature that is in heat 24/7/365 days a year. Doesn’t that seem a bit odd?
I don’t expect anyone to pick up on this theory; however, doesn’t it sound a bit better than apples on trees?

I was thinking this the other day! I’m sure there is an answer somewhere for it, but does make one think why humans are like this and other creatures migrate and have seasons etc.

 

[grannymh]

In the temporal sense…I can’t say the same. God still holds us temporally responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin.

There’s a saying: God forgives. Man may forgive. Nature never forgives.

A loving, compassionate, forgiving God throws Adam and Eve (and their descendants) into an unforgiving, uncompassionate, unloving natural habitat, which is supposed to teach us how forgiving, compassionate, and loving God is in a temporal sense? This totally contradicts the spiritual sense. It sends a confusing message at best.

This part is the most challenging part of my relationship with God. I just can’t understand this.

Practically speaking, there is not one living human who can go back in time in order to commit the Original Sin. Therefore, living humans are not responsible for Adam’s sin.

Practically speaking, people in any century, even at the dawn of human history, are not frozen in a time slot. Consequently, there is both before and after when it comes to a particular human action committed by us or by Adam. A possible example is that when a person slips on ice, the action of* slipping* is not stopped in midair. The person either quickly recovers his balance or lands splat on the cement. Depending on which piece of anatomy and the speed of falling, the outcome can be a serious injury or simply an embarrassment.

My apology to the writer of the first three chapters of Genesis.

I realize that the writer did not mention “ice on cement” when locating Adam in a garden setting. However, this is the 21st century and the people in my neighborhood know exactly what can happen in the middle of winter when one deliberately chooses to go outside.
:winter:
Some of us really do like winter and skating outdoors.

Getting back to a somewhat practical example that can be compared with Adam’s choice to go outside his safe relationship with God.

Being a true, fully-complete (body and soul) human person, Adam has the tools of reason, self-reflection, logical evaluation, abstract concepts, and analytical thought. Adam’s pristine human nature includes original holiness which is the description of Sanctifying Grace. In addition, Adam has inner harmony, that is, *mastery of self. *In his pristine state, Adam was free from triple concupiscence. (CCC, 374-377; CCC, 2514; 1John 2: 15-17)

Adam understands that he is a creature with God as his Creator. Not only does Genesis 2: 15-17 lay out the terms of this Creator/creature relationship; Genesis 3: 19-20 describes a respectful working relationship between Creator and creature.

We need to remember that the terms for maintaining this Creator/creature relationship was Adam’s obedience to God. It is obedience which both depends on love for God and which increases that love to the point that humans can enter God’s kingdom for eternity. Those terms still exist. (*CCC, *356; CCC, 396; CCC, 1703-1704)

It may be a tad difficult to imagine treacherous ice in the Garden of Eden, but similar consequences can be imagined when Adam preferred his own desires over the safety of obedience. We cannot forget that along with his gifts of Original Holiness and Justice, Adam was still able to say yea or nay to the temptation to disobey. A cunning Satan (Genesis 3: 1) was bent on diverting Adam from his goal to remain with God. Satan yearned to add humans to the ranks of the disobedient. (CCC, 391-395) Thus, Satan is known as the father of lies. (John 8: 44; 1John 3: 8)

When given the opportunity to gain the wisdom of a God, Adam chose to disobey. (Genesis 3: 6) Adam chose treacherous disobedience and, in a sense, slipped on the ice. His Fall (pun intended) was so disastrous, that he fell outside of his relationship with his Creator. Adam’s human nature was no long pristine. For Adam to be “outside” of his relationship with his Creator means that Adam was now in the contracted state of deprivation of *both *original holiness and original justice. Because there is only one God, Adam would never be an added second God as Satan’s lies promised.

Still, God loved Adam and, in forgiveness, God continued to give Adam being and existence, enabling Adam to choose future actions in accord with the requirements of his creaturely status. (CCC, 301; CCC, 398) In brief, Adam’s nature was wounded, not totally corrupted. (CCC, 405). It is transmitted by Adam and his spouse Eve to all descendants. (CCC, 416-418) This weakened nature, inclined to sin, could still seek the good of God’s presence, here on earth and forever in heaven.

The loving God never abandoned Adam and his descendants. Genesis 3: 15 is seen as the first announcement of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. (CCC, 410-411)

 

[vames]

One needs to remember that Adam has a spiritual rational soul including the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, abstract concepts, and analytical thought.

Does it mean that, having such a mind, Adam should have guessed/anticipated that, on top of “for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (A), like he was told, God would also issue a lot of brand new fundamental curses?

• Adam will die (A)
• Eve and all the rest of their descendants will die - “for dust you are and to dust you will return” (B)
• all men will have a life full of suffering on earth - “through painful toil you will eat food from it… it will produce thorns and thistles for you” (C)
• a special punishment for women - “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe” and “your husband will rule over you” (D)
• a special punishment for the natural environment and all its animals and plants, subjected to the same suffering and death - “cursed is the ground because of you” (E).
  Moreover, as other scriptures and Tradition tell us:
• Heaven will remain a forbidden place - all souls of the dead will wait indefinitely in Hades (F)
• It will be very difficult, if not impossible for the souls of unbaptized children or non-Catholic adults to be admitted in Heaven (G)
• The righteous who still have to atone for their sins will execute their punishment in Purgatory (H)
• All souls of the people guilty of unrepentant disobedience will be eternally tortured in the Hell of the Damned (I).

There is a frequent comparison between Adam and a child who is told not to touch a hot stove, because he would get burned. The child didn’t listen and he gets burned, so from now on he learns to trust the word of an adult. This comparison is meant to show God’s *justice *- that it’s not God who punished Adam and Eve, but what they got was simply a consequence of not listening to God’s warning. But what if the adult is a teacher who is so angered by such a disobedient child, that he decides to close the entire school and to exile all the children into a jungle for the rest of their life? The teacher hadn’t warned the child(ren) about all these unexpected punishments. He had only warned the child about the danger of getting burned by the hot stove.

You rightly point out that God promised us a Messiah, when He talked to the snake - “her offspring will crush your head”. This meant the opening of Heaven (F, G) and the promise of the bodily resurrection of the dead (A, B). But since all the other punishments remain in place, it’s simply quite difficult to convince people that they should trust in God’s justice and hope in God’s mercy rather than fear God’s anger, as long as we continue to interpret the human condition through the story of Adam and Eve. Hence, for example, threads on CAF like this one.

 

[OneSheep]

Practically speaking, people in any century, even at the dawn of human history, are not frozen in a time slot. Consequently, there is both before and after when it comes to a particular human action committed by us or by Adam. A possible example is that when a person slips on ice, the action of* slipping* is not stopped in midair. The person either quickly recovers his balance or lands splat on the cement. Depending on which piece of anatomy and the speed of falling, the outcome can be a serious injury or simply an embarrassment.

I think everyone, though, can see a rather tremendous difference between the laws of nature and God’s intent. Everyone of us has probably been in a classroom where the teacher says, “If you talk, you are going to get detention.” Here, the consequence is imposed by the teacher, not a natural consequence from the laws of nature. If the kid talks, the teacher still has the option of not giving a detention slip. Does God make such threats? No, not the God I know. My conscience, however, makes plenty of threats and is ever-vigilant about follow through. If God is incapable of forgiving His loved ones whenever they sin, then this is a serious blow to Love and/or Omnipotence. Are we willing to compromise Love and Omnipotence in order to uphold the threat?

On the other hand, if a person truly equates God and conscience, then the “threat from God” makes perfect sense, and I really can’t argue against that. Children, for example, will equate God and conscience, and that is normal and necessary! Children need the stability of definite “right” and “wrong”, and that stability comes from a higher authority. For adults, “the law is written in our hearts”, we no longer need a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors, because empathy becomes our guide.

So, grannymh, if you need the threat in order to behave, and you equate God with the conscience, then praise God that you have a conscience! (we should all praise God for our consciences) I invite you, however, to take your relationship a little deeper by forgiving everyone you have ever held anything against, and then you will know God in a deeper way. Since you have never said in this thread “I have done this”, I am going to very realistically assume that you have not. Everything we say about God has to do with our personal relationships with God. It sounds like the threat is important to you, and I can respect that.

Oh and one more thing - I have been reading something lately about moral development, and the role that emotion plays in such development. There is a term used for people who have been found to be incapable of having their emotions “inform” their moral development. Though I am not fond of labels, the term used is “pscychopath”. For some reason, some people are emotionally detached from moral behavior, and they end up doing a lot of awful stuff. For these people, it is extremely difficult to get them to rehabilitate, their recidivism (return to prison) rate is far above other ex-cons. These people do not respond well to calls to “love their neighbor”. It is a sad existence, and our society needs to tightly control them until we figure out how to rehabilitate such individuals.

 

[OneSheep]

Ha, thanks i like this answer. But are you sure people can enter heaven without first believing in Jesus, none of us have been, and the message i get from the church teachings of jesus is he said noone can come to the father except through me (or words to that effect)
So it must only mean that, people who believe in Jesus, not just catholic, they too will enter heaven.

This was all very confusing to me also, until the Catholic Bible study I have sometimes referred to.

It is our Catholic faith that no one can come to the Father except through Christ. So, even when a Jew or Muslim goes to heaven, he goes through Christ. And the Christ that our Church shows us is a Jesus who readily accepts such individuals.

In addition, the priest said that if a person believes, according to the way they have been evangelized, that Christ relishes punishment or has other issues such as being cruel, etc., the person would be folly to believe in Jesus, he would be much better off rejecting belief in such a Jesus.

A specific example might be one of a child whose father is a fire-and-brimstone preacher. The child may intuitively realize that there are some serious contradictions in the God-is-love message, and end up choosing to reject religion altogether, firmly believing in atheism. That person’s choice, in my view, was guided by the Spirit, even though he believes God had nothing to do with it.

 

[OneSheep]

(concerning Adam and Eve)

Like I said in the other thread, I don’t see the point of forgiving two obviously immature people, totally blinded by their curiosity and appetite…

Cool. If a person doesn’t hold anything against Adam and Eve, then there is no reason to forgive.

This reasoning also applies to something another poster said, that God does not forgive the unrepentant. If a person has harmed us and they repent, do we normally still hold something against them? Probably not. If we are called to forgive only people who repent, then what an easy calling! It’s like “If you hate someone, and they don’t change their ways, go ahead and keep on hating.” No, God forgives the unrepentant. We are called to forgive anyone we hold something against, repentant or not. If the person who wrongs us in unrepentant, that only means we have more things to forgive.

The violence of Jesus’ death is the very thing that can violently dislocate our ossified thinking and make it able to get His message. He forgave the crowd precisely while He was painfully dying on the cross, not as an old man lying peacefully in his bed or as a transfigured man before the Ascension.

Very good point.

So, you told me about your difficult upbringing, but I am still curious as to what guidance you had in going about forgiving everyone. What motivated you? When I was in the process, one of the guiding principles was “look for the trends”. I would think of an “evil” person, go about forgiving the person with all the prayer, humility, and “walking in their shoes” that entails, and afterward see that the person was not “evil” after all. Once I got caught up in the trend, the whole process, though still painfully humiliating, was rather exciting! I couldn’t stop until I forgave everyone else, then I worked on my own sins, then I worked on parts of myself that I condemned, found “bad”, like desire for status or control. I found myself, with God’s help, working through all of that stuff.

I knew that I had taken the right path, because the truth set me free. It was like what Augustine said (when he was not down on himself), “It is through the Spirit that we see whatever exists is good.” I read that several years after the forgiveness excursion, and I felt so much in common with St. Augustine.

Let’s face it, even Jesus refers to “wicked men”. Does this mean that Jesus had not forgiven them yet? Maybe not, we believe that Jesus was fully human and fully God, and it is certainly human to hold a grudge, that is the working of our conscience. Or, was something lost in the translation, that Jesus said “evildoer” instead of “wicked men”, where the former applies to all of us? Or, did Jesus use “scare quotes” when He spoke, using the language to refer to those that others condemn (even though He forgave)? Difficult to know the answer. What I do know is that Jesus is my savior, in a very big way. It was His inspiration, His love, His example, that led me on the path away from self-condemnation and scrupulosity.

 

[BobCatholic]

Practically speaking, there is not one living human who can go back in time in order to commit the Original Sin. Therefore, living humans are not responsible for Adam’s sin.

Then why are we not in the Garden of Eden? Why are we suffering?

Answer: We are held TEMPORALLY responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin. This doesn’t mean we ARE responsible for their sin. We are just being punished for it. This is unjust.

When given the opportunity to gain the wisdom of a God, Adam chose to disobey. (Genesis 3: 6) Adam chose treacherous disobedience and, in a sense, slipped on the ice.

Now why would Adam do that?

Was he stupid? Was he prideful? Was he naive? Was he fearful (i.e. 50 foot tall serpent scared him)? Those are imperfections, and thus his free will was limited. They were created imperfect, a buggy program written by the Great Programmer, and the program crashed. Then Adam was punished for crashing. But he was imperfect.

You want to use the comparison of falling down on the ice? Well, he was created imperfect and didn’t know how to ice skate, or didn’t have the balance required to ice skate properly. If someone has bad balance, or gets dizzy easily, they cannot ice skate, and it is not just to punish them for falling down on the ice.

Adam’s nature was wounded, not totally corrupted. (CCC,

405). It is transmitted by Adam and his spouse Eve to all descendants. (CCC, 416-418) This weakened nature, inclined to sin, could still seek the good of God’s presence, here on earth and forever in heaven.

More proof we are temporally held responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin. Though we are not responsible, we are punished.

 

[vames]

So, you told me about your difficult upbringing, but I am still curious as to what guidance you had in going about forgiving everyone. What motivated you? When I was in the process, one of the guiding principles was “look for the trends”. I would think of an “evil” person, go about forgiving the person with all the prayer, humility, and “walking in their shoes” that entails, and afterward see that the person was not “evil” after all. Once I got caught up in the trend, the whole process, though still painfully humiliating, was rather exciting! I couldn’t stop until I forgave everyone else, then I worked on my own sins, then I worked on parts of myself that I condemned, found “bad”, like desire for status or control. I found myself, with God’s help, working through all of that stuff.

OK, let’s say your parents or relatives constantly fight. You know how wonderful each of them can be, you know also that each of them wrongly accuses the other and that each one is much better than the image painted by the other when anger and resentments take control. You wonder how come that one can be so upset even with minor things and can have so little understanding for the tiredness, illness, hobbies, fears or old wounds of the other. But you hope: maybe tomorrow will be better and they will get along together? Because you love them both, you don’t love one more than the other, and you know they love you too… I can’t say that I chose consciously to “walk in their shoes” - there was no other way but walking in their different shoes. Then there were various other experiences, like being closely acquainted with people burdened by bad education, poverty, illnesses, abuse or simply by their own immaturity.

So perhaps such things helps one see more clearly and get used to the fine mixture of rationality and irrationality that enlightens and enrages and gives wings and deceives us. First you see it in other people, later you see it in yourself too AND finally understand (but with a lot of effort, as I said in #229) what Jesus wanted from us. I have always attributed my tendency “to try to be kind” to my Catholic upbringing, but as you know, as kids we are taught about conditional forgiveness, with all that this implies. In any case, not being sheltered and spoiled helps a lot, and doing your own costly mistakes and learning from them helps even more - I have always thought the biblical Pharisees were quite sheltered and spoiled

None of the people whom Jesus healed, forgave, blessed wasn’t sheltered and spoiled. BUT each Pharisee has the potential to become a tax collector… just like each tax collector has the potential to become a Pharisee. I told you I felt that naive pride, that I can break free from my own burdens - for ex. I used to look down to a friend who said she blamed her parents because she wasn’t able to develop her personality like she wanted; I thought all is just a question of willpower and reason and that she shouldn’t have blamed others for her tendency towards self-pity. Now I don’t judge her anymore - not because I feel self-pity myself (I don’t), but because I understand that I was wrong and that each person has his/her own experiences that make possible a time of really growing up. Likewise, a few years ago, before my awful “journey”, I probably have been baffled by “the primacy of Christ”.

Now when you see that we all have moments, days, years, ages of bad behavior, blindness, deafness, it’s scary. Very scary. On one hand: how can you preserve the respect for others and your self-esteem? Here’s a quick escape: the devil! Some posts earlier, you asked me about St Augustine: just think about how revolutionary his idea of free will must have been, knowing that to his contemporaries (and not only to them) the whole world seemed nothing more than a battlefield of powerful spirits, where man was merely a hostage, a puppet (“the devil/snake made me do it!” - sounds so familiar). Taking responsibility for one’s actions and recognizing that man has in himself the resources do good and bad things must have been a giant step in that superstitious world.

On the other hand: you feel an intense need to affirm the existence of a better you, a perfect version of man, to escape all this nightmare of evil, sin, insecurity and find a land of original innocence and self-control - just like St Augustine did. I totally dig his repulsion towards his own sins and his need to escape by building a whole theory about the Edenic life. When we are down because of the bad things done by ourselves or by others, when we blame and despise ourselves or others, such an aspiration is very strong. The same impulse is at work in all the ancient and not so ancient theories that explain the world by postulating the wickedness of the flesh, as radically opposed to the goodness of the soul.

 

[grannymh]

One of the most interesting things about the fluff surrounding Original Sin, conscience, and forgiveness is the popular speculation that the first human was minus intellect and will. On the other hand, the substantial teaching of Catholicism assures us that we are descended from a true, fully-complete human person whose nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. Though we live in a material environment, we have the freedom to share in our Creator’s divine life. We are in the image of God in that we are endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul. Perhaps, there is a fear of the responsibility connected to free actions.

Perhaps the subjective reason for downgrading Adam’s, and consequently our own, potential for spiritual growth is a normal preference for an easy life. By removing Original Sin and its consequences, an easy life appears doable–and so we end up wondering why there are difficulties. Avoiding the real Original Sin does not remove difficulties such as the intentions of Satan. Satan, the father of lies, yearns to add humans to the ranks of the disobedient. ( See post 284) Yet, as seen in the story of Adam and Eve, Satan’s power is not infinite. (CCC, 391-395; CCC, 410-411)) While Adam’s yielding to Satan’s temptation lost the Garden of Eden for all of us, we now have the Presence of God in the Eucharist.

Avoiding Adam’s consent to sin can only lead to a misunderstanding of our own weakened human nature. (CCC, 407-409) We need to remember that even with our weakened human nature, we have the power to reject Satan and all his works. This is because God did not abandon us. John 3:16.

 

[simpleas]

OK, let’s say your parents or relatives constantly fight. You know how wonderful each of them can be, you know also that each of them wrongly accuses the other and that each one is much better than the image painted by the other when anger and resentments take control. You wonder how come that one can be so upset even with minor things and can have so little understanding for the tiredness, illness, hobbies, fears or old wounds of the other. But you hope: maybe tomorrow will be better and they will get along together? Because you love them both, you don’t love one more than the other, and you know they love you too… I can’t say that I chose consciously to “walk in their shoes” - there was no other way but walking in their different shoes. Then there were various other experiences, like being closely acquainted with people burdened by bad education, poverty, illnesses, abuse or simply by their own immaturity.

So perhaps such things helps one see more clearly and get used to the fine mixture of rationality and irrationality that enlightens and enrages and gives wings and deceives us. First you see it in other people, later you see it in yourself too AND finally understand (but with a lot of effort, as I said in #229) what Jesus wanted from us. I have always attributed my tendency “to try to be kind” to my Catholic upbringing, but as you know, as kids we are taught about conditional forgiveness, with all that this implies. In any case, not being sheltered and spoiled helps a lot, and doing your own costly mistakes and learning from them helps even more - I have always thought the biblical Pharisees were quite sheltered and spoiled

None of the people whom Jesus healed, forgave, blessed wasn’t sheltered and spoiled. BUT each Pharisee has the potential to become a tax collector… just like each tax collector has the potential to become a Pharisee. I told you I felt that naive pride, that I can break free from my own burdens - for ex. I used to look down to a friend who said she blamed her parents because she wasn’t able to develop her personality like she wanted; I thought all is just a question of willpower and reason and that she shouldn’t have blamed others for her tendency towards self-pity. Now I don’t judge her anymore - not because I feel self-pity myself (I don’t), but because I understand that I was wrong and that each person has his/her own experiences that make possible a time of really growing up. Likewise, a few years ago, before my awful “journey”, I probably have been baffled by “the primacy of Christ”.

Now when you see that we all have moments, days, years, ages of bad behavior, blindness, deafness, it’s scary. Very scary. On one hand: how can you preserve the respect for others and your self-esteem? Here’s a quick escape: the devil! Some posts earlier, you asked me about St Augustine: just think about how revolutionary his idea of free will must have been, knowing that to his contemporaries (and not only to them) the whole world seemed nothing more than a battlefield of powerful spirits, where man was merely a hostage, a puppet (“the devil/snake made me do it!” - sounds so familiar). Taking responsibility for one’s actions and recognizing that man has in himself the resources do good and bad things must have been a giant step in that superstitious world.

On the other hand: you feel an intense need to affirm the existence of a better you, a perfect version of man, to escape all this nightmare of evil, sin, insecurity and find a land of original innocence and self-control - just like St Augustine did. I totally dig his repulsion towards his own sins and his need to escape by building a whole theory about the Edenic life. When we are down because of the bad things done by ourselves or by others, when we blame and despise ourselves or others, such an aspiration is very strong. The same impulse is at work in all the ancient and not so ancient theories that explain the world by postulating the wickedness of the flesh, as radically opposed to the goodness of the soul.

Can i ask if you believe the church teaching about satan being at work in the world? We are told he can influence our thoughts therefore giving us the temption to sin.
I know people who don’t practise our faith as they don’t believe in “satan” but believe that there is good and bad in everyone. As a catholic we are taught about satans lies etc, so i just wondered what you think?

 

[OneSheep]

OK, let’s say your parents or relatives constantly fight. You know how wonderful each of them can be, you know also that each of them wrongly accuses the other and that each one is much better than the image painted by the other when anger and resentments take control. You wonder how come that one can be so upset even with minor things and can have so little understanding for the tiredness, illness, hobbies, fears or old wounds of the other. But you hope: maybe tomorrow will be better and they will get along together? Because you love them both, you don’t love one more than the other, and you know they love you too… I can’t say that I chose consciously to “walk in their shoes” - there was no other way but walking in their different shoes. Then there were various other experiences, like being closely acquainted with people burdened by bad education, poverty, illnesses, abuse or simply by their own immaturity.

I have found that we don’t even have to do a lot of investigating about another person’s shoes, but it sure helps. I ask myself “why would I do the awful thing that this person did?” It is an exercise in humility and self-awareness. In fact, we psychologically project our own condemned motives on the the “other”. Condemnation of others simply mirrors, and is a function of, self-condemnation. Is this your experience? It is the way our conscience works.

Speaking of conscience, you mentioned incorporating forgiveness as part of the conscience. Ultimately, it seems to me that forgiveness is actually the path out of reward/punishment manipulative workings of the conscience. Our conscience stays, but we can observe it and accept it, and forgive ourselves when it is being too hard on us.

Now when you see that we all have moments, days, years, ages of bad behavior, blindness, deafness, it’s scary. Very scary. On one hand: how can you preserve the respect for others and your self-esteem? Here’s a quick escape: the devil! Some posts earlier, you asked me about St Augustine: just think about how revolutionary his idea of free will must have been, knowing that to his contemporaries (and not only to them) the whole world seemed nothing more than a battlefield of powerful spirits, where man was merely a hostage, a puppet (“the devil/snake made me do it!” - sounds so familiar). Taking responsibility for one’s actions and recognizing that man has in himself the resources do good and bad things must have been a giant step in that superstitious world.

Yes, that was a big step, now that you mention it. I really think, though, that the capacity for denial, automatic denial, is part of our nature. Our consciences can be so very hard on us that it is truly “healthier” to avert blame on anything rather than take responsibility. It is like after God gave us the conscience, He had to give us the automatic denial mechanism to take over, or there would be too many suicides.

On the other hand: you feel an intense need to affirm the existence of a better you, a perfect version of man, to escape all this nightmare of evil, sin, insecurity and find a land of original innocence and self-control - just like St Augustine did. I totally dig his repulsion towards his own sins and his need to escape by building a whole theory about the Edenic life. When we are down because of the bad things done by ourselves or by others, when we blame and despise ourselves or others, such an aspiration is very strong. The same impulse is at work in all the ancient and not so ancient theories that explain the world by postulating the wickedness of the flesh, as radically opposed to the goodness of the soul.

If one were to take a developmental approach, though, the good v. evil dualistic view of the universe, the Star Wars approach, Manichaeism, is exactly the way that a normal conscience would form perception of the powers-that-be. Dualism, I think, is reality for a child (to young adult), and has its place. Forgiveness, again, is the path that shows us a God deeper than the one presented by our conscience. This is that path seen in Augustine’s Confessions, but Augustine never accepted the place where he had been (Manichaeism). He had understandable reason for that non-acceptance.