Original Sin

[simpleas]

Now that you have tackled
"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.)"
   Would you apply these steps to God knowing when He forgives someone?

No? If i understand what you are asking…would i think this is how God would think before he forgives??

 

[grannymh]

If we, the Catholic Church, cannot stand up and erase all doubt about God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, then we are not promoting the Kingdom.

Granted that some, not all, people may prefer seeing God’s “forgiveness” as one-sided, i.e., a God automatically forgiving all regardless, unconditionally; the simple truth is that there is a second side, the human being who is a creature in need of His Creator’s forgiveness.

In the Catholic Church, the word unconditional does not mean that humans are automatically forgiven without any conditions of sorrow and repentance. The dark side of unconditional forgiveness is that a thinking human may bypass the importance of obedient love in a spiritual relationship with the Creator. (CCC, 396 and CCC, 1730) With one-sided unconditional love and forgiveness, there is no real reason to humbly seek forgiveness beyond a form of lip service. The dark side is that people could be proselytized .

 

[simpleas]

I do not do Noah because he is not the first human person.
However, I do wonder where the funny idea that God was displeased with His creation after the Fall came from. I guess the person who told me that John 3:16 is primarily a Protestant quote was correct. Because Catholics do not seem to be aware of it.

Genesis 6
The Flood 5-12

God regrets having made man, because of Adams sin all men sinned. BUT favor was found in Noah. Was noah and his family the only people worth saving at that time?
Now we are all worth saving through Christ, but what about all that past between the time of the flood and Christs life on earth, did these people not matter…

 

[simpleas]

The fact is, that the parts of ourselves that we resent, we will think of as foul. So, if we forgive the parts of ourselves that we resent, we will no longer think of ourselves as foul.

Yes, I remember your humble statements from the beginning of this thread.

I understand your hesitation, and I do need to clarify. I ask, “could I have done the same, if I had the same life experiences and perceptions as that other person?” This takes a lot of “what was he thinking?” introspection. It is an exercise in plank-removal.

Yeah, it’s not easy. If I want a person to feel pain, to suffer, for their deeds, then I have not forgiven completely. From a position of forgiveness I could say, “I want the person to suffer and feel pain if such suffering would help him see the light.”, but if I am not open to the person “seeing the light” without the pain and suffering, then chances are I still hold something against the person. I supposed I have learned to be wary to ways I can think I have forgiven someone, but have not.

The control aspect is a very important component when we are talking about grudges. I heard a priest say once “Forgiveness happens when we give up trying to change the past.” If we are still in the mode of needing to control a bad situation, forgiveness is very difficult.

Now that you have clarifed no.2 the answer would be yes, as i think i answered something similar on a previous post.

Funny thing is, when i see some terrible news of violence/death between people or even animals, i don’t automatically think “i need to forgive this person/s” or “i should forgive this person/s”
I would have a pain in my heart for a time and depending on what the situation was would most likely pray for the victim.
I know we pray for the sins of the world at mass, so it would prompt me then to pray for people who end up in situations where they see death as the only option.

 

[grannymh]

No? If i understand what you are asking…would i think this is how God would think before he forgives??

My point is simply that we need to recognize that while we can forgive others unconditionally, God, being our Creator, forgives according to His process. We, as creatures, cannot decide how we want God to forgive us. We, as creatures, cannot avoid “Original Sin” because it was committed by one of our own. We cannot substitute a smile and a handshake for the real human conditions of sorrow for sins, repentance, and a sincere resolve to avoid sin in the future. Humans need the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[grannymh]

Genesis 6
The Flood 5-12

God regrets having made man, because of Adams sin all men sinned. BUT favor was found in Noah. Was noah and his family the only people worth saving at that time?
Now we are all worth saving through Christ, but what about all that past between the time of the flood and Christs life on earth, did these people not matter…

The descendants of Adam and Eve who lived holy lives before the time of Christ were in a state of waiting for the gates of heaven to open. There is not a lot of nitty-gritty details.

Also, there is not a lot of nitty-gritty information about how many people lived at the time of Noah.

As for God not having regrets for man, but, rather having regrets for the sins of man, please refer to post 522
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11379698&postcount=522

 

[vames]

Most of all you have written here is what I have been thinking.
Although i don’t feel any resentment to Adam, Eve or even God for what happened.
I blame myself for not understanding, or at least being able to make a decision on what I should believe.
Some things make sense, others don’t and it gets very confusing…

You don’t feel such resentments (me neither), but others do, especially people who have a very harsh life (examples on the first page of this thread and on other threads). We are told that suffering and death are the result of God’s curse upon human race, triggered by the sin of Adam and Eve that left us all stained. So it’s explainable why some people simply feel insulted if they are told that Adam an Eve have their feast in the Catholic calendar and that we should be grateful for the “felix culpa” of Adam and Eve since THIS and only THIS made the Incarnation possible.

 

[grannymh]

One of the reasons, I am hesitant about a stain here and a stain there in reference to the broken relationship between humanity and Divinity is that I think about chocolate ice cream and its affinity for white blouses.

In my eyes, the Creator is infinitely more important than any earthly thing. I am in awe of the fact that the Creator shares His life with a mere creature who is rather sloppy when it comes to eating. To imagine having a relationship with the Creator is beyond this cranky (feminine of snarky) granny. Yet, the Catholic Church assures me that Baptism restored the life of God (Sanctifying Grace) within me. In addition, Jesus Christ repaired the damaged relationship between humanity and Divinity.

For me, I can accept the reality of Original Sin because I understand the whole story which does make sense when all the elements are in the proper place. Even though the effects of Original Sin wounded human nature, there is the God Shepherd. I know about the reality of my own nature, including the reality that I need to choose God’s forgiveness and His restoration of my broken self. All this alerts me to temptations and urges me to do better in my walk with Christ.

 

[simpleas]

The descendants of Adam and Eve who lived holy lives before the time of Christ were in a state of waiting for the gates of heaven to open. There is not a lot of nitty-gritty details.

Also, there is not a lot of nitty-gritty information about how many people lived at the time of Noah.

As for God not having regrets for man, but, rather having regrets for the sins of man, please refer to post 522
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11379698&postcount=522

CCC, 1219.The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
**that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness. **

In bold,
This didn’t happen though did it? Before christ, from the bible stories, most, not all people still fell into sin…So how do we understand this sentence?

Its almost like God didn’t want man to return to the perfect state he was before Adams sin.

 

[grannymh]

CCC, 1219.The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water”:
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
**that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness. **

In bold,
This didn’t happen though did it? Before christ, from the bible stories, most, not all people still fell into sin…So how do we understand this sentence?

Its almost like God didn’t want man to return to the perfect state he was before Adams sin.

The word sin can mean either the original or the personal or both.

Since the context is the power of Baptism, the “end of sin” refers to erasing the contracted state of deprivation of original holiness aka Original Sin. Baptism, which imparts the life of Christ’s grace (the presence of God), would be a new beginning of goodness aka holiness within the relationship of God. The person would now be in the state of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC, 405)

By the way, technically or philosophically, Adam’s “perfect state” would not happen until he was in the presence of the Beatific Vision, aka heaven. (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

 

[grannymh]

If we, the Catholic Church, cannot stand up and erase all doubt about God’s unconditional love and forgiveness, then we are not promoting the Kingdom.

Granted that some, not all, people may prefer seeing God’s “forgiveness” as one-sided, i.e., a God forgiving all unconditionally; the simple truth is that there is a second side, the human being who is a creature in need of His Creator’s forgiveness.

In the Catholic Church, there are necessary, essential conditions of sorrow and repentance on the part of the human creature in order to properly complete the process for God’s forgiveness. The dark side of unconditional forgiveness is that an individual may bypass the importance of obedient love in a spiritual relationship with the Creator. (CCC, 396 and CCC, 1730) With one-sided unconditional forgiveness as the norm, there is no real reason for an individual to humbly seek God’s forgiveness as long as the individual forgives all others. The dark side is that some, not all, people could be proselytized .

 

[simpleas]

You don’t feel such resentments (me neither), but others do, especially people who have a very harsh life (examples on the first page of this thread and on other threads). We are told that suffering and death are the result of God’s curse upon human race, triggered by the sin of Adam and Eve that left us all stained. So it’s explainable why some people simply feel insulted if they are told that Adam an Eve have their feast in the Catholic calendar and that we should be grateful for the “felix culpa” of Adam and Eve since THIS and only THIS made the Incarnation possible.

Wow, i never knew people had such thoughts about Adam and Eve, what an eye opener.
I still can’t see how people would blame them, personally I still hold that satan was or is the one to blame if anyone at all, but thats just my way to understand.
Where i’m struggling is, I am starting to think that whatever sin it was that was committed lead to the death of the body and that certain ways we live or things we say, do, are not sins. To me the biggest sin is to take the life of another, who is a child of God regardless of their faith etc.
Can i fully forgive a person who takes anothers life? yes and no…would depend on that persons state of mind.

Ps. When i say i don’t think certain things we do in life are sins, i don’t mean i think we should do whatever we wish.

 

[fhansen]

Hmmm. I “want” to assume it’s all good?

What I mean is that you seem to look for naturalistic reasons for man’s motives. The doctrine of OS suggests that man set himself *apart *from nature in some capacity-and that’s the source of his problems today. I deal everyday with “blind” people. Angry, contentious folk who make life a bit more miserable for everyone else. I have a manger who can’t seem to control his temper, acts selfishly as a matter of course, quasi-ruthless in his trying to increase profit, hard on my employees, totally ego-centric, right even if he knows he’s wrong. If I fire him he loses his house. My patience and forgiveness are put into action by my keeping him, occasionally yelling at him, threatening to release him, giving him perks and raises as incentives, usually long talks directed at treating others the way he’d want to be treated, trying to get him to see/acknowledge that he’s not always right, to treat others with respect and dignity instead of like dirt under his nails. I understand him; he’s someone who suffered greatly by being bullied when young and later reacted by becoming worse than his persecutors. But he’s bad for my business and he offends me in general-countering the very values I’ve come to treasure more and more in my life. And this is the same sense of offense I believe God would have. We all experience moral outrage/righteous indignation at some injustice we encounter or are victim to. And this sense of justice in us points to an “original justice”, a common knowledge or quality. But the fact that we can possess this justice-this knowledge of right and wrong-and still have other people completely at odds with it-doing reprehensible acts-suggests that a disconnect has occurred somewhere in the human psyche-that man is cut off from something that would more deeply or radically conform him to this common justice-his injustices being out of conformity with reason, itself, often way beyond what his immediate needs calls for.

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?

I don’t think so. I feel more *understanding *of the human condition. Humans are amazing, beautiful, noble, awesome, courageous, gentle, weak, petty, back-stabbing, mean-spirited, warmongering, angry, arrogant, selfish. We are created to be the former-we may allow ourselves to become the latter-or life experiences may drive us there. But *choice *is involved to a greater or lesser degree depending on the person and their experiences. And choice is what it’s all about: Adam’s choice-our choices. God, IMO, desires to draw us into greater moral responsibility-the Old Covenant with its laws was a first step in that process- and so into making better and better choices, the ultimate expression of that would be in our freely loving God and neighbor.

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?

I think there’s still a more primordial condition at work in the background. Could there be a deeper cause for blindness than “God made us that way"? Can we conceive of blindness as benefiting us -can ignorance be bliss, or even profitable-or at least promise to be so? Is there not also a choice involved in the background when we sin? This doesn’t make man “bad” in the way some Protestant theologies put it: man as a worthless, wormy sin-machine. It just makes him wrong in some fundamental way. And by Jesus dying for us ‘while we’re yet sinners’, we have a safe-house consisting of God’s love and forgiveness within which to “work out our salvation”, to become right/righteous/reconciled, a place where it’s ok to be wrong, where, in fact, the first right thing we can say is “I’m wrong and God, alone, is right”. From that point we begin to be right.

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:
Why does the human desire the truth?

Because we’re lost from it? I believe in any case it’s all ultimately aimed at the bigger questions: why we’re here? what/who am I? where do we go from here?

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

That’s a good question-because I see an unreasonable quality to it. People will kill another person simply in defending their egos-their “rightness”, their “right to be right”, so to speak. We’re very, very sensitive beings in that area. And IMO this is related to the concept of man wanting to be God-a journey-an exile- into unrealityville.

 

[grannymh]

Wow, i never knew people had such thoughts about Adam and Eve, what an eye opener.
I still can’t see how people would blame them, personally I still hold that satan was or is the one to blame if anyone at all, but thats just my way to understand.
Where i’m struggling is, I am starting to think that whatever sin it was that was committed lead to the death of the body and that certain ways we live or things we say, do, are not sins. To me the biggest sin is to take the life of another, who is a child of God regardless of their faith etc.
Can i fully forgive a person who takes anothers life? yes and no…would depend on that persons state of mind.

Ps. When i say i don’t think certain things we do in life are sins, i don’t mean i think we should do whatever we wish.

I have one of those silly granny suggestions which I believe in my heart would make conversations easier.

Simple suggestion. Let us first basically define “whatever sin it was that…”

Now, I do realize that there will be all kinds of suggestions including that human death is because Adam discovered half a worm in the apple he was enjoying. Yet, I believe we can come up with some reasonable definitions for Original Sin that go straight to the nitty-gritty.

 

[vames]

Now, I do realize that there will be all kinds of suggestions including that human death is because Adam discovered half a worm in the apple he was enjoying. Yet, I believe we can come up with some reasonable definitions for Original Sin that go straight to the nitty-gritty.

Adam and Eve are described as immortal, unable to feel pain and with a perfect conscience, so human suffering and death is because of the Original Sin. And not only human suffering and death. Fish, beetles, dogs, plants and dinosaurs suffer and die because of the Original Sin. God punished all the living beings who lived before Adam and after Adam, because of his only act of disobedience. Isn’t it?

The discussion about the tree is unavoidable, because it was intrinsically tempting to Adam and Eve. “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise”. If those qualities weren’t naturally appealing to human beings, Adam and Eve couldn’t have been tempted at all. This is obvious if we consider them humans like you and I. But even if we accept that they were such superhumans, how could “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” have tempted Adam and Eve if they were supposed to already possess a perfect discernment of good and evil, before experiencing any evil? The name of the tree wasn’t a lie that could be attributed to the serpent. God said: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Genesis 2). God said: “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3). If the name of the tree was such a red herring and wasn’t important at all, why wasn’t it called otherwise?

 

[fhansen]

Adam and Eve are described as immortal, unable to feel pain and with a perfect conscience, so human suffering and death is because of the Original Sin. And not only human suffering and death. Fish, beetles, dogs, plants and dinosaurs suffer and die because of the Original Sin. God punished all the living beings who lived before Adam and after Adam, because of his only act of disobedience. Isn’t it?

The discussion about the tree is unavoidable, because it was intrinsically tempting to Adam and Eve. “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise”. If those qualities weren’t naturally appealing to human beings, Adam and Eve couldn’t have been tempted at all. This is obvious if we consider them humans like you and I. But even if we accept that they were such superhumans, how could “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” have tempted Adam and Eve if they were supposed to already possess a perfect discernment of good and evil, before experiencing any evil? The name of the tree wasn’t a lie that could be attributed to the serpent. God said: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Genesis 2). God said: “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3). If the name of the tree was such a red herring and wasn’t important at all, why wasn’t it called otherwise?

The church teaches that A & E were actually destined for immortality-not that they already possessed it in their original status-it was still contingent on their actions. I think the “knowledge of good and evil” is different in kind from the knowledge of right and wrong. The former is the experience of evil-the experience of existence without the immediate hand of God in control-along with the experience of good, the good inherent in creation- while the latter is our conscience-perceiving, on the first hand, that obedience to God is right and yet determining that disobedience might be better in spite of that.

 

[OneSheep]

Genesis 6
The Flood 5-12

God regrets having made man, because of Adams sin all men sinned. BUT favor was found in Noah. Was noah and his family the only people worth saving at that time?
Now we are all worth saving through Christ, but what about all that past between the time of the flood and Christs life on earth, did these people not matter…

To me, the story of Noah is also a story based on God being our conscience. The ancient people felt guilty, and they perceived that God is equal to our conscience. Therefore, the condemnation. Remember, our consciences only “love us” conditionally. When we behave, we are worthy. When we misbehave, we are garbage, expendable, and worthy of destruction. This is not the deeper voice.

Funny thing is, when i see some terrible news of violence/death between people or even animals, i don’t automatically think “i need to forgive this person/s” or “i should forgive this person/s”
I would have a pain in my heart for a time and depending on what the situation was would most likely pray for the victim.
I know we pray for the sins of the world at mass, so it would prompt me then to pray for people who end up in situations where they see death as the only option.

You know, simpleas, I think you are an amazingly spiritual person. It is really refreshing to see someone inquisitive and being open-minded to so many things. I think that this is part of the “child-likeness” that is promoted in the Bible. Your pain for the victims shows a mature development of empathy, in addition, you have not become desensitized to the real injuries that we see so often in the media.

It is so easy not think of forgiving someone. It is not automatic. What is automatic is our condemnation of people who we see doing wrong. That reaction is a good reaction. However, we are called to forgive, and it takes an action of our will to forgive. It is a discipline. If it was automatic, Jesus would not have had to spend much time emphasizing it.

Join me, simpleas, in encouraging forgiveness in this world. We don’t have to be religious to forgive. Everyone can forgive.

 

[grannymh]

Adam and Eve are described as immortal, unable to feel pain and with a perfect conscience, so human suffering and death is because of the Original Sin. And not only human suffering and death. Fish, beetles, dogs, plants and dinosaurs suffer and die because of the Original Sin. God punished all the living beings who lived before Adam and after Adam, because of his only act of disobedience. Isn’t it?

So…my question is … just what is that thing called “Original Sin” ?

“his only act of disobedience” is a category like “animal, vegetable, mineral” in the spirit of black and white TV.

Inquiring minds want to know – what kind of disobedience? What did the act consist of? Why only?

Or in the olden golden days of journalism – Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?

 

[OneSheep]

Thank you. You have given me a clue as to the misinterpretation of Genesis, chapter 3 and the words of Christ crucified. Thank you.

This is the comment in post 525. It refers to the doctrine(s) of Original Sin. CCC 404 is also presented in post 525 as one of the doctrines surrounding Original Sin.
"Posted by OneSheep.

I get it, the doctrine is fine for you, because it in some way reflects God’s reaction to our “badness”. But can you see, yet, granny, that not all of us share in the view that we have a “badness”?
Back to my opening thanks for the clue, which is the use of the plural “our” instead of the appropriate single “his”. In other words, the post 525 comment above should be corrected to *I get it, the doctrine is fine for you, because it in some way reflects God’s reaction to **his **“badness”. * "His" needs to refer back to the original Adam and badness needs to be explained as the ultimate badness of deliberately severing the delicate relationship between creature and Creator. In his case, badness can refer the one-time Original Sin. In *our *case, badness can refer to mortal sin.

Conspicuously absent from this thread is the meaning of his Original Sin found in CCC, 398. CCC,398 compliments
CCC, 404 and thus it is not a contradiction of CCC, 404.

We read comments about disobedience and about forgiving all the people. Some even opine that he Adam did not know what he was doing when he freely committed Original Sin. It appears that the real distinction between he/him and our/all is lost. This lost is apparent when an individual is not recognized as being a single she or he in both time and space.

The difficulty of distinguishing he from our is due to the fact that our human nature has been transmitted from him via propagation. So we battle to keep “I” at the top. And our spirituality topples.

Granny, dear, you are the queen of the red herring. Look at all those words without answering the question. I was once a school board member, and before I went into a particular administrator’s office, I would write down my question on a piece of paper. I would usually have to go back to asking the question 2-3 times. It is so much easier for you to dodge my questions, because you have the comfort of anonymity and distance.

So, I’ll ask again:

1. Where does this leave the “mystery”, other than that God simply resents us (had not forgiven Adam) and Jesus had to come and die in order to erase the resentment?
2. When people “fall from our grace”, it is a matter of resentment, is it not?
3. Do humans have a “badness”? Is this our “state”? If the perception of such “badness” is not an observation from the standpoint of resentment, what is it? Humans are ignorant and have a capacity for blindness. Is this bad? Do you resent it?
4. But can you see, yet, granny, that not all of us share in the view that we have a “badness”? That our “salvation” is not payment made to God’s displeasure, offense, resentment, or what have you but that salvation comes from the revelation that God loves and forgives unconditionally? That God forgives everyone, even Adam, before we even ask for forgiveness?

And I am going to add another one you did not answer in the past, because you brought up CCC 398 again which states:

" In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him."

You may recall that I even posted the definition of “scorn”.

1. Does God ever scorn anyone? Is this not a contradiction to the assertion that God forgives? Does God “hold us in contempt”?

Such scorn, granny, is again the voice of resentment. It is the voice of our conscience.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, dear, you are the queen of the red herring. Look at all those words without answering the question. I was once a school board member, and before I went into a particular administrator’s office, I would write down my question on a piece of paper. I would usually have to go back to asking the question 2-3 times. It is so much easier for you to dodge my questions, because you have the comfort of anonymity and distance.

So, I’ll ask again:

1. Where does this leave the “mystery”, other than that God simply resents us (had not forgiven Adam) and Jesus had to come and die in order to erase the resentment?

Since I do not believe that God simply resents us, I could not figure out what kind of “mystery” you were referring to. Thus, no answer.

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

At first, I wasn’t sure that with all the “resentment” in this thread, that I really understood “fall from our grace”. Thus, no answer.

In re-thinking this question, I may or may not resent someone for doing something I do not like. I am sure that in junior high, I resented certain classmates. I remember a specific high school teacher that I really resented. I got over that when I discovered she was right in her recommendation of a university for me. I never apologized to them nor asked for their forgiveness because I never shared my thoughts with them. Thus, they were not hurt.

Currently, I don’t bother with resentment, I deal in anger.

1. Do humans have a “badness”? Is this our “state”? If the perception of such “badness” is not an observation from the standpoint of resentment, what is it? Humans are ignorant and have a capacity for blindness. Is this bad? Do you resent it?

“badness” has too many connotations… Thus, no answer.

1. But can you see, yet, granny, that not all of us share in the view that we have a “badness”? That our “salvation” is not payment made to God’s displeasure, offense, resentment, or what have you but that salvation comes from the revelation that God loves and forgives unconditionally? That God forgives everyone, even Adam, before we even ask for forgiveness?

I do know that not all of us accept Catholic doctrines. That is all the answer I have.

And I am going to add another one you did not answer in the past, because you brought up CCC 398 again which states:

" In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him."

You may recall that I even posted the definition of “scorn”.

1. Does God ever scorn anyone? Is this not a contradiction to the assertion that God forgives? Does God “hold us in contempt”?

Such scorn, granny, is again the voice of resentment. It is the voice of our conscience.

In context, it is Adam who scorned God.

I am not privy to all of God’s actions.

“scorn” could be part of resentment.

As for the voice of our conscience, is that the same conscience that “loves” in post 548? Is that the conscience or maybe the soul where some philosophical wizard speculated its physical location in or near the human brain? I was going to comment on post 548, because it sounded different from Catholicism, but couldn’t quite remember all the nitty-gritty details about Cartesian extreme dualism.

To set the record straight. I am the Queen of Cherry Pickers. I am also known as the glamorous Queen Mum Granny.