Original Sin

[OneSheep]

We don’t know the power of satan…ok…some people would say just look at the state of the world, that satan has worked his way in more and more. Some people say its all down to man…
As i understand Dualism to mean there would be two Gods, one good the other evil. God is the creator of all, including satan (i know you know this, i just need to write it to explain my thinking)
Satan is a creature, not a God and so dualism has no place as a teaching from the catholic church. But when i read the following quotes, it sometimes gets me thinking that satan is pretty powerful :

Pope Paul VI taught : Evil is an effective agent, a living spiritual being, perverted and perverting. A terrible reality. It is contrary to the teaching of the bible and the church to refuse to recognise the existence of such a reality…or to explain it as a pseudo-reality, a conceptual and fanciful personification of the unknown causes of our misfortunes.

St Paul wrote : Put on the whole armour of God, so you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our struggle is not against enemies of flesh and blood, but against the rulers, the authorities,the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph6,11)

Yes, we have to define what a “god” is. And if we are talking about an existing individual with unknown, but pervasive powers, well, as someone said about taxes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

Understanding is a big step in forgiving, how to understand what some people do is very hard. There are some people i don’t think i’ll ever understand, but i wouldn’t do to them what they do.

Please, don’t give up. Have others help you understand, this is how I came to understand child molesters, I asked some counseling professionals. I can help you understand.

What does the person who enjoys anothers pain by holding a grudge? i don’t know! They would be among my " i can’t understand why they do this" list.

Here is my take: a big trigger for our conscience is when a situation is out of control. Also, our conscience blocks our empathy when we are in resentment mode, when our rules have been violated. The value of the individual we resent becomes less than that of a mosquito.

I must admit, when the cruel antagonist gets some form of torture in a movie (The Green Mile comes to mind), and many loonytoons and other flicks, I enjoy seeing the antagonist “get their due”. This is our conscience at work. When we feel in control, our brain puts out “joy” compounds.

The price of holding a grudge, though, is holding onto the negativity toward another person. It weighs on our souls, even when we are unaware that it is tearing at us

Ordinary people came to enjoy torturing others in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We are all capable.

Does that help explain? Or do you have more questions? Fire away, and please feel free to contest my explanation.

Do you see what I am saying, though? Understanding (and the deeper level of forgiveness) involves having the humility (painful as it is) to admit that I can do exactly what others do. It is an exercise in forgiving the parts of ourselves that we condemn, the parts that we think are “bad”.

 

[simpleas]

I agree. I think the scenario experiments have a lot of bugs in them. What I do think is significant, though, is that when people are forced between the two lousy choices, with everything else the same, there is a huge difference between the number of people who would hit a button causing a death and pushing an overweight person causing a death. People were very repulsed with the pushing part, it was a gut reaction against the pushing.

I would switch the train track and scream like crazy. It would be easier to get one person to jump than 5. And here’s another twist: would you jump in front of the train if you were the heavy person? Would you push the heavy person if you went with him?

People are going to have different responses. This is not “relativism”, it is the reality that we all have different experiences and, therefore, consciences.

Bringing this back to the topic, though, the conscience is a gift from God, and I think is central to the notion of “original sin” if OS is defined as our “unworthiness”. (note: what I prefer is to say that “original sin” consists of all the drives we have that cause problems and we naturally come to resent, but that is not what I am addressing in this post.)

Can our conscience relate to a god who creates someone, and in his omniscience knows that his creation will choose to separate himself and live in misery forever?

On the other hand, does our conscience give us misery? Does it punish us in such a way, pouring guilt on us when we misbehave or disobey? Yes. Does our conscience make us feel good when we jump through all of its hoops? Absolutely. That is why, to me, the story of the tree of knowledge does not reflect God’s actions or behavior, but instead reflects the actions and behavior of the conscience He gave us.

And since grannymh and others didn’t come up with an answer, I will provide my own opinion as to why Adam ate the fruit:

Here goes. Please, anyone, feel free to comment.

Adam wanted power, he wanted status, and he had, like us, curiosity. He wanted to dominate. These are drives given to all of the higher mammals by our Creator. But there was something else involved.

Adam, all of us, want freedom. We want our autonomy.

So, as much as our consciences are vital and helpful, to some degree we resent our own consciences. Like I mentioned before, our consciences contain a rulebook. Rules always inhibit our freedom. Rules give us security, but the price is less freedom. God (as our conscience) gives Adam a rule. Adam, wanting freedom, breaks it. The conscience condemns him.

Is our conscience, God? This is where the answer is yes, and no. When we are children and young adults, our conscience is the first inner voice that we hear. As we become more self-aware, though, we also deepen our relationship with God. (Forgiveness and love play a huge role in this.) We can find that God is much deeper than our conscience. God loves us even when our conscience does not.

So, I look at the genius of the creation story is that the story reflects our own relationship with our conscience, and that the story also explains that our conscience came from God, just as every other aspect of ourselves. It would be really easy to think that the self-condemning aspect of our consciences (guilt) comes from an evil power, the devil. It does not. Our conscience is given to us by a beneficent Creator.

I am not pushing this as “fact” or the “way the our CCC should read”. I am saying that today, this is how I can make sense out of the story of Adam, Eve and the tree of knowledge.

Bold :

Million dollar question!! As the writer in Gen put it something like " for on the day you eat of it you will surely die"
Seems the writer is suggesting that God knew eventually that Adam and Eve would crave Knowledge.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, we have to define what a “god” is. And if we are talking about an existing individual with unknown, but pervasive powers, well, as someone said about taxes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck.

Please, don’t give up. Have others help you understand, this is how I came to understand child molesters, I asked some counseling professionals. I can help you understand.

Here is my take: a big trigger for our conscience is when a situation is out of control. Also, our conscience blocks our empathy when we are in resentment mode, when our rules have been violated. The value of the individual we resent becomes less than that of a mosquito.

I must admit, when the cruel antagonist gets some form of torture in a movie (The Green Mile comes to mind), and many loonytoons and other flicks, I enjoy seeing the antagonist “get their due”. This is our conscience at work. When we feel in control, our brain puts out “joy” compounds.

The price of holding a grudge, though, is holding onto the negativity toward another person. It weighs on our souls, even when we are unaware that it is tearing at us

Ordinary people came to enjoy torturing others in the Stanford Prison Experiment. We are all capable.

Does that help explain? Or do you have more questions? Fire away, and please feel free to contest my explanation.

Do you see what I am saying, though? Understanding (and the deeper level of forgiveness) involves having the humility (painful as it is) to admit that I can do exactly what others do. It is an exercise in forgiving the parts of ourselves that we condemn, the parts that we think are “bad”.

Of course any of us can do what other people do, but we choose not to do it.

Trying to understand forms of violence against each other for reasons of religion is hard to understand. All i can say is they are brainwashed into believing what they do in the name of religion is going to win them the war. I think its very sad and a total waste of human lives on both sides. Uninformed consciences?

Please do enlighten me on why people commit child abuse.

I would agree that it weighs heavily on the soul if someone holds a grudge. But try to persuade them not too. Its not that easy!

 

[fhansen]

Bold :

Million dollar question!! As the writer in Gen put it something like " for on the day you eat of it you will surely die"
Seems the writer is suggesting that God knew eventually that Adam and Eve would crave Knowledge.

We don’t know exactly the reason why Adam ate the fruit-only that Eve handed it to him and it looked good to him. The reason it looked appealing seems, from the story itself as well as from Catholic teaching, to be that he thought it would make him “like God”. Apparently he thought he’d be most like God if he could do so without God, apart from Him, apart from reference to or subjugation to His will. Adam’s will, rather than God’s will, should be done in order for Adam to truly be like God.

I think it’s interesting to consider whether we can find this same preference for ourselves over God echoed within us now. I find, like Paul in Rom 7, that my mind may delight in God’s commands, knowing they’re worthy of my obedience, but that there also exists in me another law or motivation, the motivation to sin or in any case, at a more basic level, to question whether or not I need to obey-or even if I might not be still willing to sin even* if* I knew or at least suspected the action to be wrong-to see if I might not benefit from it after all. As Augustine described the idea: “Lord grant me continence, but not quite yet”.

 

[simpleas]

I agree. I think the scenario experiments have a lot of bugs in them. What I do think is significant, though, is that when people are forced between the two lousy choices, with everything else the same, there is a huge difference between the number of people who would hit a button causing a death and pushing an overweight person causing a death. People were very repulsed with the pushing part, it was a gut reaction against the pushing.

I would switch the train track and scream like crazy. It would be easier to get one person to jump than 5. And here’s another twist: would you jump in front of the train if you were the heavy person? Would you push the heavy person if you went with him?

People are going to have different responses. This is not “relativism”, it is the reality that we all have different experiences and, therefore, consciences.

Bringing this back to the topic, though, the conscience is a gift from God, and I think is central to the notion of “original sin” if OS is defined as our “unworthiness”. (note: what I prefer is to say that “original sin” consists of all the drives we have that cause problems and we naturally come to resent, but that is not what I am addressing in this post.)

Can our conscience relate to a god who creates someone, and in his omniscience knows that his creation will choose to separate himself and live in misery forever?

On the other hand, does our conscience give us misery? Does it punish us in such a way, pouring guilt on us when we misbehave or disobey? Yes. Does our conscience make us feel good when we jump through all of its hoops? Absolutely. That is why, to me, the story of the tree of knowledge does not reflect God’s actions or behavior, but instead reflects the actions and behavior of the conscience He gave us.

And since grannymh and others didn’t come up with an answer, I will provide my own opinion as to why Adam ate the fruit:

Here goes. Please, anyone, feel free to comment.

Adam wanted power, he wanted status, and he had, like us, curiosity. He wanted to dominate. These are drives given to all of the higher mammals by our Creator. But there was something else involved.

Adam, all of us, want freedom. We want our autonomy.

So, as much as our consciences are vital and helpful, to some degree we resent our own consciences. Like I mentioned before, our consciences contain a rulebook. Rules always inhibit our freedom. Rules give us security, but the price is less freedom. God (as our conscience) gives Adam a rule. Adam, wanting freedom, breaks it. The conscience condemns him.

Is our conscience, God? This is where the answer is yes, and no. When we are children and young adults, our conscience is the first inner voice that we hear. As we become more self-aware, though, we also deepen our relationship with God. (Forgiveness and love play a huge role in this.) We can find that God is much deeper than our conscience. God loves us even when our conscience does not.

So, I look at the genius of the creation story is that the story reflects our own relationship with our conscience, and that the story also explains that our conscience came from God, just as every other aspect of ourselves. It would be really easy to think that the self-condemning aspect of our consciences (guilt) comes from an evil power, the devil. It does not. Our conscience is given to us by a beneficent Creator.

I am not pushing this as “fact” or the “way the our CCC should read”. I am saying that today, this is how I can make sense out of the story of Adam, Eve and the tree of knowledge.

Interesting opinion, but doesn’t it take us away from what the church has taught over 2,000+ years? I mean i understand most of what you say, but what of the teachings of the powers of good and evil. To say theres no such “force” of evil is contrary to the church teachings is it not?
To me it sounds like you suggest that we or our conscience is what makes us who we are, which i agree with, but if in the very beginning all was perfect with man, we need someone/thing to interfer (like satan) with the perfect man in order for him to fall.
Are you saying man fell by his conscience, this good and perfect conscience, how could that happen?

 

[BobCatholic]

But, can you see the why Jesus’ contemporaries, and even the ancient Israelites, looked at their fate as punishment?

It is false? So when scripture talks about God cursing people, that part no longer applies anymore?

Can you see, though, the wisdom in “God comes to us, disguised as our lives.”?

If this is true, then God is not loving at all.

I pray that you find hope, Bob.

I need that.

 

[OneSheep]

simpleas:
Of course any of us can do what other people do, but we choose not to do it.

It takes a lot to admit this. That doesn’t surprise me about you, though, simpleas.

Trying to understand forms of violence against each other for reasons of religion is hard to understand. All i can say is they are brainwashed into believing what they do in the name of religion is going to win them the war. I think its very sad and a total waste of human lives on both sides. Uninformed consciences?

I think violence in the name of religion is extremely rare, much more rare than we are led to believe. The violence has to do with resentment and conflicting needs.

Please do enlighten me on why people commit child abuse.

It would be a lot to explain here on this thread. Feel free to check this, though:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=620485

The hardest thing for me to understand was why people molest when they know the child is hurt by it. The answer given to me was that people who molest are under the illusion that the child wants it, and they are very difficult to convince otherwise. Desire causes blindness, and people cling to the blindness. There is a lot more to it, and cases are all individual.

I would agree that it weighs heavily on the soul if someone holds a grudge. But try to persuade them not too. Its not that easy!

I think people have to get tired of holding a grudge, unless, of course, they forgive because of the decision to love, to follow the commandment to love.

 

[OneSheep]

Interesting opinion, but doesn’t it take us away from what the church has taught over 2,000+ years? I mean i understand most of what you say, but what of the teachings of the powers of good and evil. To say theres no such “force” of evil is contrary to the church teachings is it not?

Well, St. Augustine said that whatsoever exists in any way is good. Therefore, if there exists a force, it is good. However, if you think that there is an evil force, that is okay to me. Please don’t mistake my opinion for doctrine. You’ll have to sort this out on your own. In the mean time, stick with the CCC.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275

Well, to me, sin is not a mystery, and I don’t need a “devil” to explain it. I can explain all sin in terms of human appetites, ignorance, and blindness. And the CCC can assert that satan’s power is not infinite, but since the “limit” is not known, the human mind says that such power is infinite. An unknown is an infinite unknown. I accept that many in the faith are essentially believing dualistically, and I don’t have a problem with it, and I don’t think God does either. Dualistic outlook is a natural manifestation of the reward/punishment workings of the conscience. We resent parts of ourselves and we condone parts of ourselves, and our perception of the universe mirrors what is going on in our minds. Dualism is, however, an illusion.

It is my hope that the Church of our future revisit all of the past branded “heresies”, and glean from them the little grains of truth they contain. Gnosticism and Pelagianism had little grains of truth, as well as Manichaeism. It is also my hope that the Church look carefully at a developmental approach to spirituality. When we are children and young adults, it is understandable and essential to equate God and conscience. Adults, however, have much more of God to be aware of. “When I was a child, I thought like a child, but now as a man, I live as a man.”

People use “force of evil” very loosely. It can simply mean “the force of people’s bad actions”, which is much more about evil that happens than any underlying force.

To me it sounds like you suggest that we or our conscience is what makes us who we are, which i agree with, but if in the very beginning all was perfect with man, we need someone/thing to interfer (like satan) with the perfect man in order for him to fall.
Are you saying man fell by his conscience, this good and perfect conscience, how could that happen?

Well, that is just it. I don’t believe that in the beginning all was perfect with man. We are a work in progress. I don’t see any reason to believe in a “fall”. Humans are imperfect in that we are born ignorant. In addition, we have some evolutionary artifacts (such as the blindness we have when we desire or condemn) that worked great when we were living in a bunch of little tribes, but are dangerous now that we have the technology to completely annihilate our species.

I am not explaining well enough about the creation story and the conscience, I guess. It’s just my opinion, so its not really important to anyone but me. I am not saying that man fell by his conscience, I am saying that God gave man a conscience, and the conscience punishes us for disobedience, among many other things. To me, it is not God banishing us from Eden; it is our conscience punishing us for wrongdoing. Like I have said, the “voice within” that we hear as children is our conscience. Adam, when he heard the “rule” about the tree, was a child hearing his conscience. Upon “acquiring” the conscience, that is, eating the fruit from the tree, he has acquired the standard rulebook (with individual variation, of course) that tells him it is wrong to be naked, etc. “God” (or “gods”, depending on how you read the story) expels Adam and punish him. This, too, is an activity of the conscience. I don’t believe that God literally kicked us out of anywhere or punished us. Our conscience punishes us by pouring on the guilt, telling us we are unworthy, bad, stupid, lazy, etc.

 

[vames]

So, in my experience, yes, there are people, looking back, who may have loved me unconditionally. But not outwardly so. For me, as I mentioned before, I did not know the unconditional love of God until I made a commitment to love my wife unconditionally. It was the doing that led to the seeing. Conditional forgiveness is not unconditional love.

So, until my commitment, the crucifixion did not represent God’s unconditional love. Instead, I believed in the standard fare. “Jesus died so we would not get what we deserved”. Now the crucifixion says to me, “Here is how Abba forgives, He forgives even when you torture and kill Him.”

What is your view on “forgiving your shadow”? (Jungian term)

I’d say that some people are lucky to make such a conscious commitment right from the start; others are simply led by their experience of eventually/gradually recognize unconditional love in others and in themselves, without thinking too much about it. We can meet atheists who love unconditionally their concubines or spouses, their parents, children, friends and even people outside of their ingroup (you had started a great thread about extending this kind of “natural” attitude towards family, so as to include more an more people and then any other human being. To be clear, I don’t talk about the need to find excuses for others with the purpose of making us feel better, but about love as the premise (post #336), as the starting and ending point. In a way, it’a chicken and egg problem: how can you become aware of the possibility the and the need for such a process if you don’t have an external guide and reference point, like the example of Jesus? and how can you understand the example of Jesus if you didn’t experience such a possibility and need?).

In any case, I doubt that this meaning of the crucifixion can dawn on us before any personal experience of being loved or/and loving someone unconditionally and before any experience of struggling to forgive others or themselves. This, of course, opens the way to introspection with some steps: what if I think I have forgiven X or myself only because I want to shed the burden of hate or guilt? what if I try to convince myself that God forgives us unconditionally only because I like to project my inclinations on Him and because I want to feel free to sin without the fear of being punished? how can I reconcile the teaching about “Jesus died so we would not get what we deserved” with “He forgives even when we torture and kill Him”? am I deceiving myself, especially when the teaching that God’s ways are totally different from our ways is fresh in my mind? but what if this very teaching tells me that I can unconditionally forgive only as long as nature allows me (my blood relatives and my spouse), but that I am called to extend this kind of forgiveness to everyone else? and what if this realization tells me that this is the very kind of God’s forgiveness? umm… then how I am to understand Adam and Eve’s story?

The question about “forgiving your shadow” is a beautiful one Let’s say that I have learned to love that shadow. First I was curious about it (my sleep dreams or comparing my own interpretations of literary works, for example, taught me things about myself, and this realm was always and instinctively preserved of any of my tendencies to judge myself or to apply a moral censure). Then I realized that I can surprise myself in nasty ways and that my usual cheerful “reason is my guide, I can’t make this ot that mistake” stance wasn’t enough for a correct understanding of myself. I can only wish that nobody be completely seduced or completely crushed when such pleasant or unpleasant surprises occur.

 

[OneSheep]

It is false? So when scripture talks about God cursing people, that part no longer applies anymore?

If it applies to you, then it certainly applies. Since when does anything say apply to anyone else? If what I say helps you to make sense out of our faith, okay. If you are happy with what our doctrines say, great! I only modify a few of them in order to make everything congruent with my relationship with Abba.

I don’t believe that God curses people, ever. I think our conscience does all of the cursing.

 

[OneSheep]

In any case, I doubt that this meaning of the crucifixion can dawn on us before any personal experience of being loved or/and loving someone unconditionally and before any experience of struggling to forgive others or themselves. This, of course, opens the way to introspection with some steps: what if I think I have forgiven X or myself only because I want to shed the burden of hate or guilt? what if I try to convince myself that God forgives us unconditionally only because I like to project my inclinations on Him and because I want to feel free to sin without the fear of being punished? how can I reconcile the teaching about “Jesus died so we would not get what we deserved” with “He forgives even when we torture and kill Him”? am I deceiving myself, especially when the teaching that God’s ways are totally different from our ways is fresh in my mind? but what if this very teaching tells me that I can unconditionally forgive only as long as nature allows me (my blood relatives and my spouse), but that I am called to extend this kind of forgiveness to everyone else? and what if this realization tells me that this is the very kind of God’s forgiveness? umm… then how I am to understand Adam and Eve’s story?

Did you really have all this stuff going through your mind? I never had doubts about the “projection” issue. The way I look at it, each of us only has one reference point. If I try as hard as I can to see God, or the world, from someone else’s point of view, then it is still me doing it. Projection is impossible to overcome. The priest who taught me about projection taught me in the context of forgiveness of others, and what we project on God relating to what we do. I may have learned more solid psychology from him more than I learned from my psych classes in college.

The question about “forgiving your shadow” is a beautiful one Let’s say that I have learned to love that shadow. First I was curious about it (my sleep dreams or comparing my own interpretations of literary works, for example, taught me things about myself, and this realm was always and instinctively preserved of any of my tendencies to judge myself or to apply a moral censure). Then I realized that I can surprise myself in nasty ways and that my usual cheerful “reason is my guide, I can’t make this ot that mistake” stance wasn’t enough for a correct understanding of myself. I can only wish that nobody be completely seduced or completely crushed when such pleasant or unpleasant surprises occur.

I got the “forgiving our shadow” language from Fr. Rohr. To me, it is reconciling with everything that we condemn within ourselves, eventually seeing that all of it is a gift.

Now, back to original sin. Do you know what I am talking about, when I say St. Augustine’s path? What do you think of the possibility that Augustine’s inability to continue his own path led to his practically incomprehensible statements on “non existence”, and subsequently to theories on original sin?

 

[fhansen]

I am not explaining well enough about the creation story and the conscience, I guess. It’s just my opinion, so its not really important to anyone but me. I am not saying that man fell by his conscience, I am saying that God gave man a conscience, and the conscience punishes us for disobedience, among many other things. To me, it is not God banishing us from Eden; it is our conscience punishing us for wrongdoing. Like I have said, the “voice within” that we hear as children is our conscience. Adam, when he heard the “rule” about the tree, was a child hearing his conscience. Upon “acquiring” the conscience, that is, eating the fruit from the tree, he has acquired the standard rulebook (with individual variation, of course) that tells him it is wrong to be naked, etc. “God” (or “gods”, depending on how you read the story) expels Adam and punish him. This, too, is an activity of the conscience. I don’t believe that God literally kicked us out of anywhere or punished us. Our conscience punishes us by pouring on the guilt, telling us we are unworthy, bad, stupid, lazy, etc.

I still don’t understand your concept of conscience. God’s standard rulebook could never include a morality that says nakedness is wrong. That rule would only come along after man sinned, after he lost innocence, after he divorced himself from Gods morality IOW, before which he didn’t even know he was naked-because he* wasn’t*, really! Man had now become his own judge-and he judged himself-his creatureliness-as unworthy, as wrong; shame had entered the world, overriding or influencing/modifying his conscience if anything. Pride/ego, the flip side of shame, was born, excluding God, opposing humility.

The crazy thing about this “new conscience” is that, as a result, a conscience could be pained if one didn’t accept their societies morality that approved of child sacrifice, for example. The conscience, itself, is neutral, open to opinion, unless subjugated to a higher authority worthy of the role.

 

[BobCatholic]

I don’t believe that God curses people, ever. I think our conscience does all of the cursing.

If “our conscience” does all the cursing then you are saying that scripture where God curses is false.

 

[grannymh]

Memo to gentle readers,

The Catholic Church maintains its doctrines on Original Sin and the fact that Adam’s human nature included his conscience.

 

[OneSheep]

If “our conscience” does all the cursing then you are saying that scripture where God curses is false.

I cannot argue with a scripture-writers version of what God is saying. If the scripture writer says “God is cursing you”, it is his version of truth. If I were to think “God is cursing me” then I would be mistaking God for my conscience.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that in that particular scripture-writer’s day and time, his interpretation of what God was saying, that God was angry or condemning of the Israelites, was exactly what was necessary for the survival of the tribe and their society. So the notion, at that time, was inspired. I cannot measure or judge what someone wrote thousands of years ago by today’s standards and circumstances.

But do I think God actually curses us, ever? No. That’s just me speaking. Could we be using different definitions of “curse”? God never resents us, that is what I mean to say. Remember, I am coming from a position of relationship. If, in your relationship, God curses you and so forth, so be it. If you want to change the relationship, forgive everyone, including God, including yourself.

If people want to find a deeper relationship with God, forgive everyone. I mean everyone they hold the slightest resentment against. Even people who are dead. Even “conservatives”. Even “abortionists”. Even “liberals”. Even “relativists”. Even atheists. Even Muslims. Even child abusers.

I think you are hard on yourself, though. Just an observation. You’re a great guy, and I appreciate your stance, even though it may be different than mine. If you are projecting that God curses you, then chances are you are cursing yourself. Forgive yourself.

 

[OneSheep]

I still don’t understand your concept of conscience. God’s standard rulebook could never include a morality that says nakedness is wrong.

Waaaaiiiit a minute. Are you a nudist? Most of the world wears clothes. Clothing mores are almost universal. Don’t we pray, "lead us not into temptation?

This is a great start for a conversation. Why was Adam ashamed? Please, your answer, even if it is a paraphrase of doctrine.

That rule would only come along after man sinned, after he lost innocence, after he divorced himself from Gods morality IOW, before which he didn’t even know he was naked-because he* wasn’t*, really! Man had now become his own judge-and he judged himself-his creatureliness-as unworthy, as wrong; shame had entered the world, overriding or influencing/modifying his conscience if anything.

Yes, man was given a conscience, and man judges himself. The conscience judges us unworthy or worthy, depending on our behavior. Shame is part of our God-given conscience. Shame motivates us to behave. That the conscience shames us is part of the package, the functioning package. Am I missing something?

Pride/ego, the flip side of shame, was born, excluding God, opposing humility.

I don’t look at “pride” as the flip-side of shame unless I am saying pride=self esteem. The word “pride” is a catch-all for lots of different appetites, all of which can be seen as gifts from God. Is there part of “pride” that is not a gift from God?

The crazy thing about this “new conscience” is that, as a result, a conscience could be pained if one didn’t accept their societies morality that approved of child sacrifice, for example. The conscience, itself, is neutral, open to opinion, unless subjugated to a higher authority worthy of the role.

That is just it. I see a higher authority in the collective conscience. Child sacrifice requires dehumanization of the child (blindness) or flat-out ignorance of the child’s value. Awareness, the truth of the value of the child, leads to an unambiguous morality. People who are aware know the beauty, wonder, and humanity of the unborn. A person who says “the unborn have no value” is blind or ignorant. A person who disagrees with abortion but says that humans (especially certain humans) are the scum of the earth is also blind or ignorant.

That said, morality is a guide, but there are often situational issues that complicate things. My grandfather’s first wife had a very difficult first childbirth, and the doctor warned her not to have another. She became pregnant again, and the doctor told her to have an abortion, or she would die. She went to a priest, who told her not to have the abortion. She, and the child, both died. Who was right?

What is “new conscience”? Right and wrong is not relative. Conscience is guided by our appetites, which come from God, and our experiences, which, to some degree, also come from God. All of this guides Church doctrine about right and wrong.

 

[fhansen]

Waaaaiiiit a minute. Are you a nudist? Most of the world wears clothes. Clothing mores are almost universal. Don’t we pray, "lead us not into temptation?

Are our bodies evil? Did God create Adam & Eve with clothes in mind? Why do you take for granted that the mores of man should be the norm? If that were the case-if man’s “righteousness” was always necessarily truly right, why would we need revelation, why would we need Jesus Christ?? Adam & Eve didn’t even know they were naked. And they weren’t. Their eyes were opened because their passions were no longer in control. They no longer could look upon each other innocently.

This is a great start for a conversation. Why was Adam ashamed? Please, your answer, even if it is a paraphrase of doctrine.

Augustine believed it was because Adam was from then on controlled by lust which was made obvious by his nakedness. He hid from God since it was obvious he had fallen/changed. I believe that in any case man judged his body to be bad in some way or another-and this judgment would offend God and has also continued to cause us a great deal of harm-human dignity is greatly compromised by this shame.

Yes, man was given a conscience, and man judges himself. The conscience judges us unworthy or worthy, depending on our behavior. Shame is part of our God-given conscience. Shame motivates us to behave. That the conscience shames us is part of the package, the functioning package. Am I missing something?

Yes! Man’s shame of his own nakedness is simultaneously shame of his status as a creature *and *shame for his Creator. Nakedness-whether physical or spiritual-is no more or less than the truth of who we are-something we hide from at the present time. IOW shame of our bodies is a blatant mark of the reality of OS in us. The smallest lie, the faintest feigned smile when we really don’t mean it-any way in which we hide from or cover the truth-are likewise evidences of man’s loss of innocence.

I don’t look at “pride” as the flip-side of shame unless I am saying pride=self esteem. The word “pride” is a catch-all for lots of different appetites, all of which can be seen as gifts from God. Is there part of “pride” that is not a gift from God?

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, pride is inordinate self-love, itself a good. All evil is a twisted or perverted good since everything in creation is inherently good.

That is just it. I see a higher authority in the collective conscience. Child sacrifice requires dehumanization of the child (blindness) or flat-out ignorance of the child’s value. Awareness, the truth of the value of the child, leads to an unambiguous morality. People who are aware know the beauty, wonder, and humanity of the unborn.

That said, morality is a guide, but there are often situational issues that complicate things. My grandfather’s first wife had a very difficult first childbirth, and the doctor warned her not to have another. She became pregnant again, and the doctor told her to have an abortion, or she would die. She went to a priest, who told her not to have the abortion. She, and the child, both died. Who was right?

What is “new conscience”? Right and wrong is not relative. Conscience is guided by our appetites, which come from God, and our experiences, which, to some degree, also come from God. All of this guides Church doctrine about right and wrong.

Right and wrong are indeed relative in everyday human affairs if child sacrifice can be collectively held to be a moral good by one society and a moral evil by another.

 

[grannymh]

When people wish to understand Original Sin spirituality from Catholic Church teachings, it is necessary to begin with the Catholic teaching that all humankind is in Adam as “one body of one man.” (*CCC, *404) Therefore, people need to avoid the error that each living person’s individual conscience and or appetites is the originator of their human nature. It is an error to think that the individual person produced her or his own conscience independently either on the spot or as a consequence of her or his own development according to cultural surroundings…as if conscience and appetites did not come with the conception package.

One of the more helpful Catholic teachings is that our spiritual soul, that which makes us a fully-complete human person, is not produced by humans in any way.
(CCC, 366)

It is the whole human person (uniquely united body and soul) that is intended to become, in the Mystical Body of Christ, a temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 6: 19-20; CCC, 364) St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15: 45:-49) teaches the relationship between the first human, Adam, and the Incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Who stood in humanity’s place and atoned for the Original Sin.

Therefore, it is not necessary for 21st century humans to reinvent the wheel, that is, reinvent both the tools of human nature and the Catholic means of obtaining human nature’s goal of being a temple of the Holy Spirit and thus entering heaven. While personal speculations about Original Sin, conscience, and appetites can add some interesting insights, those various insights in themselves do not have the power to change essential Catholic teachings.

So, in order to understand human spirituality, which in essence is our unique relationship with our Creator, we need to first understand human nature at the beginning of the history of man. (CCC, 390) Here we find harmony (original justice) between the conscience and appetites. (CCC, 377) In Genesis, chapters 1 & 2, we see that God offered Adam, as the progenitor of humankind, “mastery” over his material environment (Genesis 1:28-31; Genesis 2, 15-17; Genesis 2: 20; CCC, 374; CCC, 378)) and above all mastery of self. (CCC, 376-377)

The truth, as taught by the Catholic Church, is that this entire harmony of original justice, foreseen in God’s plan for all humankind, will be lost by Original Sin. (CCC, 379)

Original Sin destroyed the harmony between the Creator and His creature.

 

[simpleas]

Well, St. Augustine said that whatsoever exists in any way is good. Therefore, if there exists a force, it is good. However, if you think that there is an evil force, that is okay to me. Please don’t mistake my opinion for doctrine. You’ll have to sort this out on your own. In the mean time, stick with the CCC.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275

Well, to me, sin is not a mystery, and I don’t need a “devil” to explain it. I can explain all sin in terms of human appetites, ignorance, and blindness. And the CCC can assert that satan’s power is not infinite, but since the “limit” is not known, the human mind says that such power is infinite. An unknown is an infinite unknown. I accept that many in the faith are essentially believing dualistically, and I don’t have a problem with it, and I don’t think God does either. Dualistic outlook is a natural manifestation of the reward/punishment workings of the conscience. We resent parts of ourselves and we condone parts of ourselves, and our perception of the universe mirrors what is going on in our minds. Dualism is, however, an illusion.

It is my hope that the Church of our future revisit all of the past branded “heresies”, and glean from them the little grains of truth they contain. Gnosticism and Pelagianism had little grains of truth, as well as Manichaeism. It is also my hope that the Church look carefully at a developmental approach to spirituality. When we are children and young adults, it is understandable and essential to equate God and conscience. Adults, however, have much more of God to be aware of. “When I was a child, I thought like a child, but now as a man, I live as a man.”

People use “force of evil” very loosely. It can simply mean “the force of people’s bad actions”, which is much more about evil that happens than any underlying force.

Well, that is just it. I don’t believe that in the beginning all was perfect with man. We are a work in progress. I don’t see any reason to believe in a “fall”. Humans are imperfect in that we are born ignorant. In addition, we have some evolutionary artifacts (such as the blindness we have when we desire or condemn) that worked great when we were living in a bunch of little tribes, but are dangerous now that we have the technology to completely annihilate our species.

I am not explaining well enough about the creation story and the conscience, I guess. It’s just my opinion, so its not really important to anyone but me. I am not saying that man fell by his conscience, I am saying that God gave man a conscience, and the conscience punishes us for disobedience, among many other things. To me, it is not God banishing us from Eden; it is our conscience punishing us for wrongdoing. Like I have said, the “voice within” that we hear as children is our conscience. Adam, when he heard the “rule” about the tree, was a child hearing his conscience. Upon “acquiring” the conscience, that is, eating the fruit from the tree, he has acquired the standard rulebook (with individual variation, of course) that tells him it is wrong to be naked, etc. “God” (or “gods”, depending on how you read the story) expels Adam and punish him. This, too, is an activity of the conscience. I don’t believe that God literally kicked us out of anywhere or punished us. Our conscience punishes us by pouring on the guilt, telling us we are unworthy, bad, stupid, lazy, etc.

I would say you are explaining well, i on the other hand am probably slow to grasp what you do explain! I respect your opinion, as do you respect mine
I just have to question you in order to understand from how i read your posts, if you get what i mean…

Ok so how do you (if you don’t mind me asking) deal with sin. I mean, if like you say our conscience tells us when something is good or bad, what if the conscience doesn’t see sin in something, if the conscience see only good where the church teaches its bad for the soul, do you or would you feel the need to go to confession, even though you don’t believe its a sin?
On the other hand when you do/say something that the conscience reminds you is wrong you have no second thoughts of confession.

I think all have our own thoughts about God, we all know we have our own personnal relationship with God, so its not hard to imagine what we would think differently about God in a way.

I am always referring back to the ccc, and working my way through the os as it is explained by our church.

Thanks for the link on the child abuse, i can relate to a few of the posters, but like you said, there is much to it and every case is very different.

 

[OneSheep]

Are our bodies evil?

Some people’s consciences, albeit misinformed, say so. There is some Catholic history on this. Some people resent their bodies. But no, our bodies are not evil. To me, nothing about the human is evil, only his actions sometimes…

Did God create Adam & Eve with clothes in mind? Why do you take for granted that the mores of man should be the norm? If that were the case-if man’s “righteousness” was always necessarily truly right, why would we need revelation, why would we need Jesus Christ??

I think God created Adam and Eve knowing that they would cover themselves. Jesus gave us a new righteousness, of course. His commandments were about loving one another, and forgiving one another, putting these at the forefront. To me, Jesus’ revelation is about a God who forgives always, a God who is our “Daddy”, Abba.

I am not taking for granted that the mores of man “should be the norm”. The mores of man are make sense in the context of man’s appetites and blindness to be controlled. The idea of “the body is evil” is a blindness, but we have no mores against it. Perhaps we should. We have mores against self-mutilation.

Adam & Eve didn’t even know they were naked. And they weren’t. Their eyes were opened because their passions were no longer in control. They no longer could look upon each other innocently.

If Adam and Eve could no longer look at each other innocently, though, it was because they were blind to their own innocence. This is the action of the conscience. The conscience says, “you did something bad, so you are bad”, or “you thought something bad, so you are bad.” So their eyes were certainly not opened. By the action of their consciences, they were now blinded.

In addition, let’s look at the other aspect of “looking upon each other innocently.” In this case, it is not just the conscience that gives us a bit of blindness. Desire blinds us. When we are caught up in desire, our empathy can be blocked. Humans have the capacity to see each other as sexual objects, to not consider the wishes of others in terms of wanting to be seen this way, or treated this way.

Augustine believed it was because Adam was from then on controlled by lust which was made obvious by his nakedness. He hid from God since it was obvious he had fallen/changed. I believe that in any case man judged his body to be bad in some way or another-and this judgment would offend God and has also continued to cause us a great deal of harm-human dignity is greatly compromised by this shame.

This does make a lot of sense in its congruity with “God taking offense”. I don’t think God takes offense. I think God created man with a conscience, knowing full well that man would condemn aspects of himself. Its a tradeoff. Man has to have something by nature that would control his appetites. That “something” our conscience, is not “perfect” in its content, because we are starting from a position of ignorance in the beginning. Here is a really big mystery: Why are we born ignorant? It is questions like that which are very humbling.

Yes! Man’s shame of his own nakedness is simultaneously shame of his status as a creature *and *shame for his Creator. Nakedness-whether physical or spiritual-is no more or less than the truth of who we are-something we hide from at the present time. IOW shame of our bodies is a blatant mark of the reality of OS in us. The smallest lie, the faintest feigned smile when we really don’t mean it-any way in which we hide from or cover the truth-are likewise evidences of man’s loss of innocence.

Man’s shame can be shame for his Creator? Please elaborate.

Please excuse my lack of understanding here. On the one hand, you are indicating that shame is an untruth, if I am reading this right. I would qualify this, saying that shame leads to a blindness about the value of the object of the shame. On the other hand you are indicating that man has “lost his innocence”, which is the conscience talking again, saying “shame on man”. Unconditional love and forgiveness is the path by which we can see human innocence. Man has not lost his innocence.

Here, to me, is a key part of forgiveness. I find the good intent. I find the good intent of people in their sin. It’s difficult, because it seems like “making excuses” for them. I make it a matter of discovery rather than a trial. At a deeper level, what is the “good intent” of God giving us the capacity for shame? What I have found is that loving God “with all my mind” means being thankful, by seeing the good in all of our human capacities and appetites. I don’t think we are too far off here, really.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, pride is inordinate self-love, itself a good. All evil is a twisted or perverted good since everything in creation is inherently good.

Let’s investigate “inordinate self-love”. Are you talking about someone thinking “I am better than everyone else”, Or are you talking about the human drive to dominate? Which one, or both, are “evil” to you?

Right and wrong are indeed relative in everyday human affairs if child sacrifice can be collectively held to be a moral good by one society and a moral evil by another.

One of those societies is collectively ignorant and blinded. Such collectivity may appear to happen, but I think not. Societies in which the leadership affirmed the goodness of child sacrifice had to have some push-back from those who cared about the ones being sacrificed. On the other hand, parents send their children to sacrifice when they allow them to go to war, seeing the “good” in their sacrifice. In this day in age, though, I think such perception is more often part of the illusion. That is probably subject for a different thread, though.