Original Sin

[OneSheep]

Fantastic speculations usually are carefully worded so as not to appear heretical.

Here is something worth quoting again granny:

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

Although I must admit that the links Vames contributed were a tad difficult to understand (I am unfamiliar with all of those works), you must admit that this quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is not “carefully worded so as not to appear heretical”.

I’ll tell you what, no reason to respond to this. I’ll stick with the God I know, One who does not, nor never did, resent humanity, and you stick with the God you know. It is your choice to forgive or not to forgive. I hope you forgive someday.

 

[vames]

In the 21st century, some fantastic speculations do turn out to be heretical. For example, there is the Arian Heresy which, by the way, is alive and well in the theory of “prophet among prophets.”

Prophet among prophets means a latecomer whose life depended on the sins of man and who failed just like other men: yesterday Buddha, now Jesus, tomorrow Gandhi. To function as a prophet, Jesus didn’t need to be divine and to exist from all eternity; He could have been a simple man. At the same time, to function as a prophet, Jesus didn’t need a real Incarnation; His human appearance could have been an optical illusion for the masses. So I don’t know what can be more different from the absolute primacy of Christ. You say that it would be silly to assume that those “unused words from good men” would automatically make someone a heretic, but yet you quickly mention Arius and “prophet among prophets”. So who and when can one use those “unused words from good men” without being quickly reminded about heresies?

 

[grannymh]

Here is something worth quoting again granny:

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

Although I must admit that the links Vames contributed were a tad difficult to understand (I am unfamiliar with all of those works), you must admit that this quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is not “carefully worded so as not to appear heretical”.

I’ll tell you what, no reason to respond to this. I’ll stick with the God I know, One who does not, nor never did, resent humanity, and you stick with the God you know. It is your choice to forgive or not to forgive. I hope you forgive someday.

The reference to mankind does refer to human persons who are creatures and not The Creator.

And the reference to mankind in the work of expiation which mankind offers does refer to human persons who are mortal and therefore do not have the same status of God, the Creator. In the case of reparation for the actual Original Sin, the expiation needed cannot be offered by mortal creatures, mankind, even when they tried.

Catholicism correctly points out that mankind – because mankind is not a Divine transcendent pure spirit – mankind is incapable of reconciling himself a creature with the Creator. This disparity between creature and Creator is exactly the reason for “… the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

And my choice is to humbly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to mankind’s origin and nature.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure here. Are you implying that a person who does not believe God took offense in Adam’s choice does not believe in God?

No, I don’t see any of that in there. I’m saying that our level of sin is reflective of our level of faith in and especially our level of love for God.

This is a common analysis, but is this really what people have in mind when they sin?
When you have sinned, have you said to yourself, “I prefer myself over God”? If so, that is a statement of ignorance. We are nothing without God.

Yes? And yet Adam thought otherwise. We may or may not be conscious of the reason for sin but it’s all related to and flows from that first act of disobedience. Sin is lawlessness, as 1 John 3:4 puts it. This is so regardless of whether or not we’re conscious of breaking the law at the time. In Catholic teaching our culpability increases as our knowledge and deliberateness of intent increases. The question still begs to be answered either way: when push comes to shove, would we even care? Would we/do we prefer our own way to God’s?

Let us say, for now, that Adam’s choice or behavior was inordinate. What was his good intent?

His good intent was to be “more”. And what more can one be than to be God? The inordinacy, the injustice, that resulted from this was that once man considers himself the equal of God (even if he should “know” better), then God loses His place in the order of things-man has no God and man becomes lost. We’re ‘born lost’ as a result. It is not “normal” that man is born without immediate knowledge of God and His love. We take for granted the present situation we’re born into; the need for faith in God, let alone hope in God, let alone love for God seem like foreign necessities when first heard of. And yet we don’t have a clue where we came from, if anywhere, why we’re here, if for anything, and where we’re going, if anywhere-without revelation. And that’s the point of our faith. We don’t know, without “outside help”, what the problem is with humanity. We don’t know, without the supernatural perspective, that rape, genocide, torture, lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, putting someone down to make ourselves look better, are* necessarily objectively wrong,* are necessarily anything other than ‘situation normal’ for human beings. Jesus gives us a totally higher perspective from which to view and assess human righteousness.

I don’t think it’s a stretch, and I think we should all consider what you are saying. But before we can consider it, we need to know what aspect of “pride” you are talking about, and try to discern what “inordinate pride” is.

It’s not “inordinate pride”; it’s inordinate self-love” In the Catholic usage of the term all pride is inordinate. Pride is the exaltation of self over and above one’s true status, over and above truth, IOW. And we all suffer from a lack of humility to one degree or another; relatively speaking we only benefit from having more of it. Pride is the exaltation of self over God. And IMO that’s the place to look for the origin of sin in us first of all-rather than in simple blindness.

The Atonement is a pronouncement by God that 1) sin is real; it would cavalierly, perhaps almost unconsciously, seek to destroy, to humiliate, reject, torture, and kill the most beautiful, perfect, and innocent thing in the universe; to kill light, truth, and love-that which is superior to itself: that’s the heart of sin at it’s extreme, most clearly revealed, and 2) He forgives us in spite of that, and loves us completely, unconditionally, unimaginably.

 

[OneSheep]

The reference to mankind does refer to human persons who are creatures and not The Creator.

And the reference to mankind in the work of expiation which mankind offers does refer to human persons who are mortal and therefore do not have the same status of God, the Creator. In the case of reparation for the actual Original Sin, the expiation needed cannot be offered by mortal creatures, mankind, even when they tried.

Catholicism correctly points out that mankind – because mankind is not a Divine transcendent pure spirit – mankind is incapable of reconciling himself a creature with the Creator. This disparity between creature and Creator is exactly the reason for “… the expression of that foolish love of God’s which gives itself away to the point of humiliation in order thus to save man”.

And my choice is to humbly follow the teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to mankind’s origin and nature.

The point of the matter (to me) is that the expiation is not needed at all, because God is not vengeful, God does not, nor never has, held anything against us. God forgives always, and Jesus showed us just that. That, however, is my perspective.

Remember, I am not saying that our species does not need salvation. We are certainly enslaved by our nature, and God shows us a way beyond that. When we hold something against someone, granny, we are slaves to the workings of our conscience, which functions in punishing us when we do wrong. Forgiveness is the antidote for when we hang onto resentment.

I thank you for your past willingness to talk about forgiveness, and I wish we could take it up again. We can intellectually argue this round and round forever, but it is no use. To you, God resents or resented us, to me, not. This is a very personal thing. It is up to the reader, the individual Catholic, to search their soul and find their answer. There is absolutely nothing you can say, there is no document you can offer, there is no point that you can make, that will change what I know from my own relationship with God.

Forgive, granny, forgive Adam, forgive me, forgive everyone you hold something against. Before you sit down to pray, forgive, reconcile. Before you quote from the CCC, do this. Before you give advice to anyone, do this. If you doubt what I am saying in this paragraph, talk to your priest. Do you ever talk to your priest about forgiveness? Does he tell you to withhold forgiveness of people?

And seriously, granny, if a person, such as my wonderful wife, grew up not believing in a vengeful or resenting God, would you really want the person to change their mind? Please give that some serious consideration. My wife grew up in a very conservative Catholic household where personal responsibility was greatly emphasized. Are you somehow indicating from the CCC that it is wrong to believe in a God who never held anything against Adam?

 

[OneSheep]

Yes? And yet Adam thought otherwise. We may or may not be conscious of the reason for sin but it’s all related to and flows from that first act of disobedience.

Well, that is what we are discussing. My choice to sin has nothing to do with what Adam did. I take full responsibility for my sin. My sin boils down to my ignorance, my God-given appetites, and my automatic blindness. You may feel the same way, but I’m not sure.

Adam did not create himself. I did not create myself. Both of us were born with the capacity to sin, to disobey. I see that those capacities are part of the gift, hard as it is to believe.

Sin is lawlessness, as 1 John 3:4 puts it. This is so regardless of whether or not we’re conscious of breaking the law at the time. In Catholic teaching our culpability increases as our knowledge and deliberateness of intent increases. The question still begs to be answered either way: when push comes to shove, would we even care? Would we/do we prefer our own way to God’s?

I do like the “lawlessness” definition, thanks for putting it in here. Would we even care? Let’s assume for a moment that we would not care. That is not giving the benefit of the doubt (we are called to give the benefit of the doubt), but let’s assume it anyway. If we would not care, why would we not? Would you agree with me, that something is blocking our care?

Would we prefer our own way to God’s? Another good question. Let’s assume the WCS, again, and say we would prefer our own way, contrary to what God asks. Why would we do this? What is our intent?

His good intent was to be “more”. And what more can one be than to be God?

I have in my mind an episode of a loony-tune where a little chicken hawk is intent on killing huge Foghorn Leghorn. Its a hilarious attempt to overpower. Can you picture God doing this when we try to have our way? The human nature is predictable, but quite loveable. We are a top predator. Like all top predators, lions, killer whales, monitor lizards, etc., we are naturally compelled to dominate our environment. Can you see the innocent ignorance of a child trying to be more powerful than his parents?

The inordinacy, the injustice, that resulted from this was that once man considers himself the equal of God (even if he should “know” better), then God loses His place in the order of things-man has no God and man becomes lost. We’re ‘born lost’ as a result. It is not “normal” that man is born without immediate knowledge of God and His love. We take for granted the present situation we’re born into; the need for faith in God, let alone hope in God, let alone love for God seem like foreign necessities when first heard of. And yet we don’t have a clue where we came from, if anywhere, why we’re here, if for anything, and where we’re going, if anywhere-without revelation. And that’s the point of our faith. We don’t know, without “outside help”, what the problem is with humanity. We don’t know, without the supernatural perspective, that rape, genocide, torture, lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, putting someone down to make ourselves look better, are* necessarily objectively wrong,* are necessarily anything other than ‘situation normal’ for human beings. Jesus gives us a totally higher perspective from which to view and assess human righteousness.

Are you saying that people isolated from laws don’t know right from wrong? I’m not sure you are saying this. Isolated human populations form rules and mores very similar to non-isolated societies. Yes, God gives them these laws- through their nature.
We have no reason to believe that we are any less ignorant now than Adam was upon his creation. In fact, evidence shows that we have done nothing but increase in awareness since the beginning of our species presence on Earth, at least in recorded history. But I have no reason to argue the point. The bigger question is “Did God ever feel resentment toward His creation”? Does God take offense?

It’s not “inordinate pride”; it’s inordinate self-love” In the Catholic usage of the term all pride is inordinate. Pride is the exaltation of self over and above one’s true status, over and above truth, IOW. And we all suffer from a lack of humility to one degree or another; relatively speaking we only benefit from having more of it. Pride is the exaltation of self over God. And IMO that’s the place to look for the origin of sin in us first of all-rather than in simple blindness.

You have a point, there. “Simple blindness” is not the whole answer to me either. Man wants to dominate everything. Where does this innate desire to dominate come from?

The Atonement is a pronouncement by God that 1) sin is real; it would cavalierly, perhaps almost unconsciously, seek to destroy, to humiliate, reject, torture, and kill the most beautiful, perfect, and innocent thing in the universe; to kill light, truth, and love-that which is superior to itself: that’s the heart of sin at it’s extreme, most clearly revealed, and 2) He forgives us in spite of that, and loves us completely, unconditionally, unimaginably.

So, we are in complete agreement about unconditional love.

And actually, fhansen, if you are taking that to heart, which I believe you are, forgiving people unconditionally, with the same “foolish love” of Jesus, then we are really coming from the same viewpoint. It does seem to me that you may still hold something against Adam or mankind, that there is some cause for resentment on God’s part. If you hold it against people that they want to dominate God, can you forgive them? Can you reconcile with your own drive to dominate?

I mean, look at the forum. People try to “win”. It is part of our nature. We want to be in control, to be on top. It’s not just a human thing, many other species have the same drive.

 

[fhansen]

And actually, fhansen, if you are taking that to heart, which I believe you are, forgiving people unconditionally, with the same “foolish love” of Jesus, then we are really coming from the same viewpoint. It does seem to me that you may still hold something against Adam or mankind, that there is some cause for resentment on God’s part. If you hold it against people that they want to dominate God, can you forgive them? Can you reconcile with your own drive to dominate?

I mean, look at the forum. People try to “win”. It is part of our nature. We want to be in control, to be on top. It’s not just a human thing, many other species have the same drive.

And I think that is exactly where we differ. The human desire to be right is wrong , basically, essentially wrong from the get-go; outside of reason. You want to assume it’s ‘all good’-natural-while I hold that it’s unnatural. You see man as still just, operating out of his nature as it was created. I see man as being in an unjust state-as having something missing-and this being true first of all regardless of whether or not I’m wiling to forgive anyone for it, which I see no need for BTW; it’s simply the way things are. But knowing the ‘way things are’ is greatly beneficial.

The doctrine of OS is one of the reasons I came back to the Church because it explained much of what I’d experienced in the world: the reason why sin/moral evil exists at all. The unreasonableness of human self-righteousness-something we all share and take for granted-this strange, sometimes almost desperate need to be right in and of ourselves-as if we were really that important-a need or assumption about ourselves that ultimately causes or allows people to justify the worst acts possible against other humans-aside from the day to day smaller ways we treat each other like dirt.

 

[grannymh]

To you, God resents or resented us, to me, not.

May I respectfully point out that I have never said to you or anyone else that I believe that “God resents or resented us.”

This is a very personal thing. It is up to the reader, the individual Catholic, to search their soul and find their answer.

I agree that it is up to the individual Catholic – however, I would broaden that to all individual persons– to search their souls --* however, I would not limit the search to one’s own soul *-- to find their answer.

There is absolutely nothing you can say, there is no document you can offer, there is no point that you can make, that will change what I know from my own relationship with God.

Being older than dirt, I have met many people who did not agree with what I was saying. That is a human privilege. Seeking agreement is one thing. Sharing the truth about God, Original Sin, and human spirituality is far more important.

God calls each human person to actively share in His life. (Genesis 1: 26-31; CCC, 355-356) Paragraph 355 (IV) specifically states: “God established him in His friendship.” Friendship needs at least two persons. Catholicism teaches that historically, the first two persons are specifically the first human creature biblically known as Adam and God as Creator. Only one of these two is a Divine, Transcendent Pure Spirit without material restrictions.

One of the overlooked points in Genesis chapter three is verse 9. The Lord God then called to the man and asked him, “Where are you?” What God was actually seeking, since obviously He knew where Adam was hiding, was for Adam to acknowledge his position of separation from his Creator, that is, where Adam, the creature, was in relationship to his Divine Creator.

The need for humans to acknowledge both their goodness and badness before our Creator has not changed.

We acknowledge our goodness by recognizing God’s Sanctifying Grace in our soul.
(CCC, Glossary, “Sanctifying Grace”, page 898) We freely choose to glorify God and thank Him. We ask Him for mercy and petition Him for ourselves and others. We are spiritually active as we know, love, and serve God, looking forward to joy eternal in the presence of the Beatific Vision. (CCC, Glossary, “Beatific Vision”, page 867)

We acknowledge our badness when we freely own up to our errors, some so serious that they break our relationship with our Creator. With this acknowledgement of our free will to choose wrong over right, we can humbly ask our God for His forgiveness.

 

[OneSheep]

And I think that is exactly where we differ. The human desire to be right is wrong , basically, essentially wrong from the get-go; outside of reason. You want to assume it’s ‘all good’-natural-while I hold that it’s unnatural. You see man as still just, operating out of his nature as it was created. I see man as being in an unjust state-as having something missing-and this being true first of all regardless of whether or not I’m wiling to forgive anyone for it, which I see no need for BTW; it’s simply the way things are. But knowing the ‘way things are’ is greatly beneficial.

Hmmm. I “want” to assume it’s all good? Actually, in my journey, I came from a position of resentment, and then forgave. What I see, through investigation, is that the human is beautiful and amazing. When I see the human as less than beautiful and amazing, then it is when I hold something against mankind. When we hold something against anyone, we are called to forgive, this is the connection. When you say “unjust”, are you looking at humanity in a negative light? Do you feel any resentment?

Yes, there is something “missing” from mankind. We lack awareness. If we hold it against mankind for being unaware, can we forgive humanity for this?

The doctrine of OS is one of the reasons I came back to the Church because it explained much of what I’d experienced in the world: the reason why sin/moral evil exists at all. The unreasonableness of human self-righteousness-something we all share and take for granted-this strange, sometimes almost desperate need to be right in and of ourselves-as if we were really that important-a need or assumption about ourselves that ultimately causes or allows people to justify the worst acts possible against other humans-aside from the day to day smaller ways we treat each other like dirt.

I like your approach a lot. That is, I like that you are looking at the big picture. You have started from “what allows people to justify the worst acts possible against others?”.

To me, Jesus answered this question from the cross. “They do not know what they are doing.” This, to me, is what it boils down to. People don’t do bad things to people they value. People do bad things to people who they perceive to be dirt, mosquitos, as enemies to mankind. We punish and destroy what we resent. This explains Nazism, but does not fully explain the guy who does an armed robbery and shoots someone. It also does not explain why we lash out at people we love, but there are explanations for those, too. Jesus’ answer still pertains.

So, here is the next question: Why would God create in us the desire to be right? Why do we have this appetite? We can probably break it down into at least two questions, and perhaps you could add more:

1. Why does the human desire the truth?
2. Why does the human think that the truth he has found is better than someone else’s truth?

 

[simpleas]

You are the one who is keeping yourself on the side of goodness.

“Conscience” is listed on page 776, Index of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. There are 24 topics about conscience. My suggestion is to choose a topic and read its paragraphs. Also helpful will be the footnotes and the cross-references in the margins. On page 878 of the Catechism’s Glossary, there is a definition for Examination of Conscience which is part of the preparation for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

My apology. I do not know the origin of the unusual idea that “every thought/deed is supposed to be controlled by God’s will.” My guess is that it is some misunderstanding of human nature’s relationship with God. Maybe it is a false notion of the fact that we are in the image of God.

Not necessarily.

There is a big difference between a wounded human nature and a totally corrupted human nature when it comes to using the word “sinners.” Being a sinner does not always mean that we are actively sinning every moment. In our humility, we need to recognize our capability to sin and that we have sinned. We recognize that our weakened human nature is inclined to sin because that is so much easier than doing the right thing. With these thoughts in mind, we can acknowledge that we are a sinner.

The Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation gives us many graces to be used in future battles against temptations to sin

At the same time that we acknowledge our sinful acts, thoughts, and omissions, we seek the Good Shepherd Who wants to hold us, a sinner, close to His heart and carry us home.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Thanks for this, I don’t have a copy of the ccc, but i can get it easily enough online. I shall take a look at your suggestion and see if it helps.

I’ve heard words to the effect that all we do should be for the good of God in church, and sort of understood it like we should live like priests/sisters, but then that wouldn’t work because we couldn’t marry etc.

I’m not sure what sort of relationship we are supposed to have with God, since we are the “weak wounded sinful humans” trying not to mix that up so that I don’t think I don’t need God to keep forgiving me, with i’ll always need forgiveness from God, yet I don’t want to feel “wrong” and just want to praise God and be happy.

I’m working on it!

 

[simpleas]

To me, all of our consciences are “good”, even though they may be somewhat uninformed. Our conscience, as I have stated, is a gift from God.

Our conscience keeps us on the side of goodness, as you have said, but I think that our consciences can also be very hard on us, and at some point we need to stop our self-punishment and forgive ourselves.

We can take ownership of all of our thoughts and deeds. We are not puppets. We are, however, somewhat biological and psychological machines in that we all have the “appetites”.

And yes, I agree, we are all sinners. But I think it is very important what we do with that identity. Do we forgive ourselves and all others, or do we hang onto resentment, the action of an unmitigated conscience? We can be sinners, but also know that we are beautiful and wonderful in the eyes of God. We too, can see all others this way.

Yes, aren’t we told we are perfect in Gods eyes?
Maybe we are just imperfect in mans eyes?
But then God is the only one who can fully forgive a murderer etc, we humans maybe incapable for full forgiveness?

 

[simpleas]

Yes, before Original Sin, there was no experience of pain and death.
But, and this is important to realize, there was knowledge of evil. Important difference.

After Original Sin, Adam experienced the effects of evil on human nature. Important change.

There was knowledge of evil in the garden?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks for this, I don’t have a copy of the ccc, but i can get it easily enough online. I shall take a look at your suggestion and see if it helps.

I’ve heard words to the effect that all we do should be for the good of God in church, and sort of understood it like we should live like priests/sisters, but then that wouldn’t work because we couldn’t marry etc.

I’m not sure what sort of relationship we are supposed to have with God, since we are the “weak wounded sinful humans” trying not to mix that up so that I don’t think I don’t need God to keep forgiving me, with i’ll always need forgiveness from God, yet I don’t want to feel “wrong” and just want to praise God and be happy.

I’m working on it!

Well, as to your last paragraph the Apostle Paul comes to mind, the paradox is we are sinners who must not sin. Thus the sacraments of the Church. That leads to your previous thoughts on marriage, again a sacrament and a vocation. Here…

foryourmarriage.org/the-vocation-of-marriage/

The Pope goes to confession weekly as was this true with Bl John Paul II, a Saint soon to be recognized as one. From here its easier to see oneself as granny quoted Genesis: “Where are you”. Constant self inventory and sometimes two steps forward and one backward. This way you take full responsibility for your actions thus contrition. Or as St Teresa of Avila said; “We shall never learn to know ourselves except by endeavoring to know God; for, beholding His greatness we realize our own littleness; His purity shows us our foulness; and by meditating upon His humility we find how very far we are from being humble.”

 

[grannymh]

There was knowledge of evil in the garden?

Genesis 2: 15-17

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, aren’t we told we are perfect in Gods eyes?
Maybe we are just imperfect in mans eyes?
But then God is the only one who can fully forgive a murderer etc, we humans maybe incapable for full forgiveness?

Well, perfect? Hmmm. I think we are beautiful in God’s eyes, but perfection is in the eye of the beholder. Jesus calls us to be perfect, so if we were already perfect, this would be an unnecessary call. It does mean, though, that it is within reach. Depends on the definition of perfection.

Are we humans capable of “full forgiveness?” Wow, do you have a great set of questions! You are a born thread-starter, for sure!

Here is how I know when I have forgiven someone:

1. I have admitted that I could have done what he did, and I see myself as no better than he is.
2. I understand why the person did what he did, to the degree that I understand why* I *would have done it.
3. (Most important) I no longer hold anything against the person. I have no desire to punish the person, or give them “what they deserve.” I sense that the person “deserves” to be loved and enlightened. (Note: this is not the same as not wanting the person to pay their debt to society.)

I have wondered, simpleas, if there is more to forgiveness than what I have already experienced. Well, why not? Why would there not be more to reconciliation than we already know? I will file that question under “mysteries”. It’s one of those “How do I know what I don’t know?” questions.

 

[grannymh]

Here is how I know when I have forgiven someone:

1. I have admitted that I could have done what he did, and I see myself as no better than he is.
2. I understand why the person did what he did, to the degree that I understand why* I *would have done it.
3. (Most important) I no longer hold anything against the person. I have no desire to punish the person, or give them “what they deserve.” I sense that the person “deserves” to be loved and enlightened. (Note: this is not the same as not wanting the person to pay their debt to society.)

I have wondered, simpleas, if there is more to forgiveness than what I have already experienced. Well, why not? Why would there not be more to reconciliation than we already know? I will file that question under “mysteries”. It’s one of those “How do I know what I don’t know?” questions.

Yes, these three steps for forgiving others are very good and they are certainly beyond what I would write.

And I am on the same page you are when you commented:
" I have wondered, simpleas, if there is more to forgiveness than what I have already experienced. Well, why not? Why would there not be more to reconciliation than we already know? I will file that question under “mysteries”. It’s one of those “How do I know what I don’t know?” questions."
What I wonder about would be the difference between these steps between humans and the steps between the Creator and the creature.

 

[simpleas]

Genesis 2: 15-17

I still don’t see how Adam could see/know evil before he committed the sin. He would have to have known both good and evil to make the choice, but there was no evil in the place he was dwelling. (apart from the serpent of course!)

 

[vames]

I’ve heard words to the effect that all we do should be for the good of God in church, and sort of understood it like we should live like priests/sisters, but then that wouldn’t work because we couldn’t marry etc.

I’m not sure what sort of relationship we are supposed to have with God, since we are the “weak wounded sinful humans” trying not to mix that up so that I don’t think I don’t need God to keep forgiving me, with i’ll always need forgiveness from God, yet I don’t want to feel “wrong” and just want to praise God and be happy.

I’m working on it!

Well, if you take the literal story of Adam and Eve seriously, then it’s unavoidable to think that our life (with its suffering, sins and death) is a punishment from a distant God who must be really upset with us, since He didn’t and won’t lift the curse, no matter what - regardless of the Atonement, regardless of the Baptism, regardless of endless penance, mortifications, supplications, reparations from people. You will manage to feel guilty and worthless and to blame everything on Adam, Eve, you and your neighbor. There were saints and very religious people who mutilated their own bodies out of that guilt, in an attempt to unroot sin, to punish their bodies, to free themselves of their “weak, wounded, sinful nature”, to become again worthy of God’s love. And there are people who even today claim that the vast majority of souls are thrown in hell, because this “weak, wounded, sinful nature” is disgusting in the eyes of God who obviously is still offended by the sin of Adam and Eve.

On the other hand, if you reject the literal story, there’ll be always people who will try to make you feel guilty for “choosing an easier way”, for refusing to “take responsibility” for the sin of Adam and Eve or for “blurring the boundaries” between the Creator and creature. IOW you mustn’t dare to think about God as a loving parent, closer to you than you are close to yourself, because a Creator is not a parent. You mustn’t dare to think that God created us as imperfect people, who evolve naturally from the unconsciousness of a small child towards the maturity of an adult, who fall ill, suffer and die like any other creature. No, the idea of such a creation would be demeaning to the perfect God - so you must think that the first man was created as an inhumanly perfect adult who, despite his inhuman perfection and despite having zero experience of evil, singlehandedly brought all the sin on earth and God’s curse on mankind, by a SINGLE act of disobedience. So you must think that Adam in a way is the real creator of our world.

 

[OneSheep]

May I respectfully point out that I have never said to you or anyone else that I believe that “God resents or resented us.”

My apologies, I think that there is a distinction you are making that I am not aware of. In your view, is there, or was there, a “stain” on the human because of Adam’s behavior? If so, is this not a matter of resentment? Does OS not give the impression that the human has somehow “fallen” into disfavor in some way? That there is some payment to be made in order to expiate the wrath or resentment?

Please clarify your position. If God never resented us, if he never “took offense”, then what is Original Sin to you? Please, please, do not quote the CCC. Just tell me what it says in your words.

When people “fall from our grace”, it is a matter of resentment, is it not?

The need for humans to acknowledge both their goodness and badness before our Creator has not changed.

We acknowledge our badness when we freely own up to our errors, some so serious that they break our relationship with our Creator. With this acknowledgement of our free will to choose wrong over right, we can humbly ask our God for His forgiveness.

If there is ever a “break” in our relationship with God, then it is only in the mind of the human. God never breaks a relationship with us. The Father awaits the prodigal son with already raised arms.

It is true that humans do bad things. But do humans have a “badness”? Is there something about the human that is bad? That is the voice, the perception, from resentment.

 

[grannymh]

Well, if you take the literal story of Adam and Eve seriously, then it’s unavoidable to think that our life (with its suffering, sins and death) is a punishment from a distant God who must be really upset with us, since He didn’t and won’t lift the curse, no matter what - regardless of the Atonement, regardless of the Baptism, regardless of endless penance, mortifications, supplications, reparations from people. You will manage to feel guilty and worthless and to blame everything on Adam, Eve, you and your neighbor. There were saints and very religious people who mutilated their own bodies out of that guilt, in an attempt to unroot sin, to punish their bodies, to free themselves of their “weak, wounded, sinful nature”, to become again worthy of God’s love. And there are people who even today claim that the vast majority of souls are thrown in hell, because this “weak, wounded, sinful nature” is disgusting in the eyes of God who obviously is still offended by the sin of Adam and Eve.

On the other hand, if you reject the literal story, there’ll be always people who will try to make you feel guilty for “choosing an easier way”, for refusing to “take responsibility” for the sin of Adam and Eve or for “blurring the boundaries” between the Creator and creature. IOW you mustn’t dare to think about God as a loving parent, closer to you than you are close to yourself, because a Creator is not a parent. You mustn’t dare to think that God created us as imperfect people, who evolve naturally from the unconsciousness of a small child towards the maturity of an adult, who fall ill, suffer and die like any other creature. No, the idea of such a creation would be demeaning to the perfect God - so you must think that the first man was created as an inhumanly perfect adult who, despite his inhuman perfection and despite having zero experience of evil, singlehandedly brought all the sin on earth and God’s curse on mankind, by a SINGLE act of disobedience. So you must think that Adam in a way is the real creator of our world.

And then there is the option of believing Catholic doctrines.