Original Sin

[vames]

Oops!

The Catholic Church never taught that Adam possessed a perfect knowledge of God when he lived in the Garden.

The Catholic Church does teach that it is in heaven that people are in the presence of the Beatific Vision. There is a big, big difference between the temporary abode of the Garden and the eternity of heaven.

Did Adam need to be catechized like us and to make such efforts to seek God, to learn about God, to believe in God, to try everyday to discern His will? No. According to the text of Genesis, Adam was in the presence of God, saw God bringing the animals and fashioning Eve, knew that he was created by God and that everything else was created by God. And God spoke to him personally and gave him personally the one and only commandment that was relevant for his life: “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die”. Wasn’t this enough?

Of course, nobody thinks that Adam had access to the perfect knowledge reserved to the people who are in Heaven, i.e. don’t inhabit this world anymore. But the knowledge of God and God’s will that A&E had was incomparably superior to what any living man could ever dream to have while living in this world. So what exactly did Adam lack in knowledge? Can there be an “original holiness and justice” (CCC 375: This grace of original holiness was “to share in… divine life”) without “knowledge of keeping in their state”, as my old catechism says? And would God condemn a man who doesn’t have enough knowledge about God and God’s will?

You said “It is ourselves who wish to downplay Adam’s knowledge as an excuse for his decision”. OK. To me, the key in understanding the limits of this knowledge is the fact that the tree was called “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”; that’s why I said earlier in this thread that without the knowledge of evil, Adam was simply innocent, like a child who knows his parents, sees them every day and hears their commands and advices (so in this sense he has a “perfect knowledge”, as opposed to a child who doesn’t know his parents personally, but only hears or reads about them from other sources), but this innocence isn’t enough to prevent him from disobeying and making mistakes.

If you say that “Adam could see, desire, and actively seek”, it means that he wasn’t free from concupiscence, which is obvious from the fact that he was so easily confiscated by his desire to eat the forbidden fruit. And indeed, free will supposes the ability to sin, which wouldn’t exist if all our natural appetites wouldn’t exist. But CCC 377 says “The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason”. And my catechism says that A&E had “integrity, that is, the perfect subjection of sense and reason”. I can’t see how a man who is free from the triple concupiscence and who is endowed with a perfect subjection of sense and reason could sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Believe it or not “why any of us sin” is exactly why I connect our spirituality with correct knowledge of both Original Sin and Adam. Current difficulties arise because even an incidental misinterpretation of the Adam Story or the misinterpretations of general teachings of Catholicism such as forgiveness and conscience can grow and expand to the dangerous point of damaging the base for our spirituality which is based on a “good” God. For example, the misunderstanding of Adam’s “innocence” easily leads to accusations that God is …
Therefore, God is not so good after all…

Whew, that is a bit of maze to reach that conclusion.

You are talking about “damage to our spirituality”, yet you cannot answer fundamental questions about love and forgiveness that I posted in #779; you leave hanging the question of whether or not God is more forgiving than you are.

I’ll give you a shot at an new question, though, concerning God’s goodness. Is it possible that our Good God gave us concupiscence as a benefit to us?

 

[fhansen]

Did Adam need to be catechized like us and to make such efforts to seek God, to learn about God, to believe in God, to try everyday to discern His will? No.

But doesn’t this show that Adam was different from us after all? If the concept of OS is invalid, then why don’t we possess this knowledge now, from birth? Why should we need to regain it now, via or beginning with faith?

It seems to me that the only reason man could think, however dimly, that he could be like God, is because he wasn’t/isn’t God. IOW, man’s potential for sinning doesn’t come directly from free will, rather it comes from his inherent inability to have the perfect wisdom of God; free will is neutral. And knowledge is easier to attain, while, for the creature, perhaps, wisdom takes time and experience.

If fear of the Lord really is the beginning of wisdom, it seems to me in any case that by Adam’s act he shows that he had no real fear of God. I think that Adam didn’t suffer from concupiscence, or even lack of knowledge per se; he suffered from lack of wisdom. Concupiscence means inordinate desire, but Adams desire was ordinate-the desire to be like God, which he wasn’t yet-he was just the raw material, so to speak. He lacked the wisdom to know that he can’t be like God, apart from God. Only God can divinize man; only God can grant immortality; man must remain partnered with God to have his full intended integrity. Man’s righteousness comes, in part, from knowing that his righteousness comes from God, and so freely subjugating himself to Him. Man’s freedom allows him to depart from that righteousness, God’s righteousness, from God’s authority, from God.

And I think that’s the heart of the matter. OS means that man is apart from God. Our problem isn’t in our not being able to forgive, first of all; rather its prior to that-it’s in the sin that would require forgiveness, and that sin comes from our apartness from God, which OS or AS introduced. And the true remedy for that is communion with God, which He proves that He desires via His revelation in the person of Jesus Christ; His forgiveness being the open door back to that communion. I appreciate a simple and yet profound statement of Pope Benedict’s from Spe Salvi:
"Let us put it very simply: man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope."

 

[grannymh]

We are told that Adam possessed a perfect knowledge of God and that he didn’t have concupiscence. CCC 2514: St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods // CCC 2515: Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetitecontrary to the operation of the human reason // CCC 377: The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

The first point in bold, “perfect knowledge of God” was corrected in post 844
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11449290&postcount=844
"The Catholic Church never taught that Adam possessed a perfect knowledge of God when he lived in the Garden.

The point in bold about freedom from the triple concupiscence was also discussed in post 844.
“It is a mistake to consider freedom from concupiscence as something which ignores the beauty of our anatomy, the need for material food and shelter, and the appropriate appreciation of our talents.”

What may be overlooked is the very important reference in bold to* mastery of self* as being within man himself. Mastery of self is part of Adam’s human nature. When Adam’s human nature was wounded by Original Sin, mastery of self was also wounded.

If Adam really possessed such qualities, 1) he wouldn’t have had any motivation to sin (he’d have known from the start that the serpent lies and that no creature can successfully rival and defeat God); 2) he couldn’t have had any means to sin (he’d have been devoid of any natural appetites, including the ability to experience pride and any intense human desire).

The “quality” of a perfect knowledge of God was not possessed by Adam when he lived in the Garden…does not mean that Adam was brain dead.

As for the other items. What is additionally necessary for a Catholic understanding of Eden is to get rid of the false assumptions that Eve was a decrepit hag three sheets to the wind, and that they lived in a leaking tent, and that Adam had such a terrible inferior complex that he stayed in his bedless room with stale bread as his only nourishment.

Yes, the preceding is a tad overdone; however, the points to be made are that Eve is beautiful and Adam is handsome. They had the ability to provide sufficient shelter if it were needed when the rain gently nourished the ground. Yummy organic food was bountiful with one exception. God recognized Adam’s talent in zoology. Obviously, there was the curiosity to go past the reasonable boundaries of these examples. Freedom from concupiscence means that Adam could still see, desire, and actively seek…according the dictates of reason aka conscience inscribed with the word of God. Do remember that Adam can freely change his own conscience. Adam’s intellect and free will did override his reasonable conscience.

As for the talking snake. Common sense should reveal that the writer of Genesis, chapter three, had to find a way to describe an immaterial, cunning Satan. I doubt that this writer would choose a kitten. If only special effects and Kindle had been created in the Garden.

As for Adam listening to the talking snake bamboozle Eve. He may or may not have known that this creepy creature was Satan. What Adam did know for certain, was that whatever was hanging from the forbidden tree was flat out inviting Adam to abandon his relationship with his Creator. This sneaky critter was not necessarily saying that an intelligent creature can successfully rival and defeat God. Satan was offering a bigger goal which was becoming like a god. Nonetheless, one could stick with the proposed temptation that God could be defeated. In both cases, the Original Sin would sever humanity’s relationship with divinity. In both cases, there was plenty of motivation to commit the really big sin.

As for Adam’s appetites. They are a basic necessity for human nature, like the instincts for survival.

As for Adam having the means to sin. All that is necessary is a big mouth in order to say yes to Satan’s temptation and enough teeth to chew a tasty piece of organic fruit.

 

[fhansen]

Some questions-not new ones.
Do we want forgiveness for disobedience without obligation to obedience? There would be shades of certain brands of Protestantism in that.

Is there a human tendency to be repelled by having to obey-even to obey God?

If so, is there a way to overcome it, a way to overcome this repulsion, to embrace obedience?

Perhaps related to this, is there a preference for ourselves over God, as the Catechism teaches Adam had?

 

[grannymh]

Whew, that is a bit of maze to reach that conclusion.

You are talking about “damage to our spirituality”, yet you cannot answer fundamental questions about love and forgiveness that I posted in #779; you leave hanging the question of whether or not God is more forgiving than you are.

I am not the one in charge of restoring Sanctifying Grace in an individual’s soul. Therefore, there is no way I can compare my human actions with God’s forgiveness. I may be cranky, but I am still a female.

I’ll give you a shot at an new question, though, concerning God’s goodness. Is it possible that our Good God gave us concupiscence as a benefit to us?

No. Please refer to CCC, 405-409.

As for fundamental questions about God’s unconditional love and His forgiveness dependent on the individual’s sorrow for mortal sins which includes repentance and a sincere desire for God’s presence, Sanctifying Grace…I have used the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition which apparently is not acceptable. It is my unchangeable choice to use this universal Catechism when it comes to participation in the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Damage to our spiritual health occurs
when we refuse to accept the conditions for God’s forgiving restoration of His Sanctifying Grace in our soul. This damage is a preference for the material delights of remaining in the state of mortal sin.

Because of the fact that we have a decomposing anatomy, it would be prudent to seek God’s merciful forgiveness in the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation which brings us back into His divine company.

 

[simpleas]

So, here is the knowledge gap, IMO: These people were probably brought up with married parents. Do they realize what it is going to be like when their children are teenagers and wanting to be sexually active? It will be very difficult to control when an example has already been set. In addition, do these married couples have the third ply in the cord, or is their commitment based on feelings of love, political congruity, common interests, etc. All these things can pass, if not temporarily. Does their commitment involve a commitment to love and serve God? The importance and value of these things are part of the knowledge gap.

We are certainly not to stand by. I belong to, and donate to, a number of groups that promote international reconciliation and non-violence. I am also active in efforts locally to stop gang violence.

In order to go to war, the aggressor must already be blind to the value, the humanity of his enemy. Their empathy has been blocked by condemnation. Look at the reaction from our congress to Obama’s efforts at making peace with Iran. Diplomacy may halt war, but what do we do to promote a lasting peace, one that begins with forgiveness?

Do these responses make sense? Did I address the question? Would you like to tackle some more examples? Most often, we have to commit the question to our own prayers, because often one question answered leads to many more questions. However, there is always in my experience, a last question to answer. When I have answered the last question (with God’s help, of course) I no longer hold anything against the person about whom I am thinking negatively.

Thanks
I don’t really know what they think about how they will teach their own children, I just observe this, and i’m not judging them on how they live, to be honest I don’t see bad in unmarried relations, maybe because I see many. I’m trying to work out the difference between people “living” life, if you like, without guilt, in only goodness for each other and still loving God without fear.
Like in the ccc it says about a good conscience, so if they believe their own conscience is of good loving intent how can others tell them its wrong, that its mortal sin?
Should it not only be mortal sin if people have no respect for each other, have children to whoever they like, and not really care what they do?
I know you will say the latter are most likely without knowledge, blind, ignorant, or have psychological problems. And thats another question I’m trying to work out, Psychological issues we have, many people suffer some form of issue during their life, so if the issue causes sin, is the person really in control?

Very good of you to do what you do for your community.

 

[simpleas]

I think the reason that it’s an interesting-and maybe important-question is because it’s related to why any of us sin.

Yep, of course and i agree.

 

[simpleas]

Do we believe that A&E were the only two humans in the garden at the time of sin?

What I am thinking is how could they gain knowledge about each other as humans without other humans being present?
I know we don’t need to know another person in order to know and love God, but only having two people experience the world, animals and each other and fall from grace easily is worth thinking about more.
Why procreate only after the sin and not before, but even if they did procreate before sin, their children would still be affected?

 

[grannymh]

Thanks
I don’t really know what they think about how they will teach their own children, I just observe this, and i’m not judging them on how they live, to be honest I don’t see bad in unmarried relations, maybe because I see many. I’m trying to work out the difference between people “living” life, if you like, without guilt, in only goodness for each other and still loving God without fear.
Like in the ccc it says about a good conscience, so if they believe their own conscience is of good loving intent how can others tell them its wrong, that its mortal sin?
Should it not only be mortal sin if people have no respect for each other, have children to whoever they like, and not really care what they do?
I know you will say the latter are most likely without knowledge, blind, ignorant, or have psychological problems. And thats another question I’m trying to work out, Psychological issues we have, many people suffer some form of issue during their life, so if the issue causes sin, is the person really in control?

Very good of you to do what you do for your community.

Perhaps it is time to seriously consider the difference between objective reasoning and subjective reasoning plus considering when both objective and subjective are in play.

For example, God is an objective reality because His existence does not depend on what we think. God’s moral commandments are objective, no matter what society thinks, because God’s moral commandments existed before we were born and will continue existing after we die.

Occasionally in other forums, I like to pop in with this thought – The human person is worthy of profound respect. That happens to be an objective truth demonstrated by Christ’s Resurrection, the universality of the Catholic Church, and human nature per se.

Our conscience starts out, like Adam’s, based on the fact that as creatures, we are subservient to our Creator. Adam hid from God because when Adam examined his conscience, he knew he had chosen the wrong action. This hiding game exists today as we often twist parts of our conscience to coincide with our own personal preferences. The hiding game does not take away the fact that Adam’s conscience was there in the beginning when Adam with full intelligence and free desire chose sin.

What we lose spiritually when we downplay Adam’s pre-Fall and post-Fall life, is a firm understanding of *both *what is good, that is, what is directed toward sharing in God’s life on earth and a firm understanding of what is bad, that is, what moves us away from sharing in God’s life.

Humans are complex spiritual creatures because we are both body and soul as one nature. That is why God continues to interact with us personally since the historic moment He made “man” in His image. In that creation of humanity, God gave us the power of a person who can initiate and control one’s actions so that we can freely seek God and reside forever in the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven after our bodily death. (CCC, 1730-1731)

Obviously, because human bodies are made of [material] matter, there are conditions when a person is inhibited from making free choices for one reason or another. This is when we need to stop underestimating the power of God to touch a soul and bring that soul into union with Himself. We need to stop underestimating the spiritual power of a soul to reach out to God.

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps it is time to seriously consider the difference between objective reasoning and subjective reasoning plus considering when both objective and subjective are in play.

For example, God is an objective reality because His existence does not depend on what we think. God’s moral commandments are objective, no matter what society thinks, because God’s moral commandments existed before we were born and will continue existing after we die.

Occasionally in other forums, I like to pop in with this thought – The human person is worthy of profound respect. That happens to be an objective truth demonstrated by Christ’s Resurrection, the universality of the Catholic Church, and human nature per se.

Our conscience starts out, like Adam’s, based on the fact that as creatures, we are subservient to our Creator. Adam hid from God because when Adam examined his conscience, he knew he had chosen the wrong action. This hiding game exists today as we often twist parts of our conscience to coincide with our own personal preferences. The hiding game does not take away the fact that Adam’s conscience was there in the beginning when Adam with full intelligence and free desire chose sin.

What we lose spiritually when we downplay Adam’s pre-Fall and post-Fall life, is a firm understanding of *both *what is good, that is, what is directed toward sharing in God’s life on earth and a firm understanding of what is bad, that is, what moves us away from sharing in God’s life.

Humans are complex spiritual creatures because we are both body and soul as one nature. That is why God continues to interact with us personally since the historic moment He made “man” in His image. In that creation of humanity, God gave us the power of a person who can initiate and control one’s actions so that we can freely seek God and reside forever in the presence of the Beatific Vision in heaven after our bodily death. (CCC, 1730-1731)

Obviously, because human bodies are made of [material] matter, there are conditions when a person is inhibited from making free choices for one reason or another. This is when we need to stop underestimating the power of God to touch a soul and bring that soul into union with Himself. We need to stop underestimating the spiritual power of a soul to reach out to God.

Maybe this is a better way to explain my question.

I’m not trying to deny sin exists, nor what we as society now regard as sinful or not. Its an observation on us as humans who believe we are spiritual without needing to ask for Gods grace within the catholic church. Is this down to humans again making the mistakes all over again trying desperately to live for God but preferring to forget God and distract ourselves with all the luxuries in life, because we don’t have long to live, so do what makes you happy sort of thing. And while some things that make us happy last a while, but are not good for our soul, others can make us happy and last a life time.
This seems to be the pattern over and over in the bible, but God seems to make in clear within so many years, yet we live now 2,000 yrs later, and have to deal with science, man controling births and deaths, continued wars etc, when will God pull the plug sort of speak. We seem more like we are achieving being like God than Adam could ever have imagined! (not that i think this is a good thing)

Yes we are spiritual creatures:thumbsup:But not everyone is in union with the catholic church, they follow what they deem to be spiritual to them, as we have that free will to do, but we are told sometimes at church that we still need to pray for conversions. When the pope said people who do not believe in God could still get to heaven, he meant our God, Jesus, So what God are people believing in if it is not Jesus.

Sorry I am rambling on.
I am not underestimating the power of God or the soul to reach each other, if people are not looking for the light or finding it else where God is forgotten

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks
I don’t really know what they think about how they will teach their own children, I just observe this, and i’m not judging them on how they live, to be honest I don’t see bad in unmarried relations, maybe because I see many. I’m trying to work out the difference between people “living” life, if you like, without guilt, in only goodness for each other and still loving God without fear.
Like in the ccc it says about a good conscience, so if they believe their own conscience is of good loving intent how can others tell them its wrong, that its mortal sin?

Well, moral codes are the result of insight. When the whole idea of commitment to marriage disintegrates, there are many problems down the line that it takes “seeing the big picture” in order to understand. The problem with moral codes is that so often the code is there without explaining all the suffering that led up to forming the code in the first place.

So, we can explain why a certain behavior is harmful down the road, and hopefully people will take ownership. Is a lack of commitment to marriage because of fear of their own ability to remain faithful? In that case, some communication in the pair would be fruitful. Is lack of commitment to God because people see a hypocrisy in Christianity, that we talk of a God of love but spend all of our time pointing fingers of condemnation?

So, yes, there is a place for saying when a behavior is wrong, but with people who are connected to Love within, it is going to take a lot of explanation. One of my godsons, who is currently an atheist, is getting married soon, outside of the church. He sees belief in God as harmful. He cannot be talked into anything otherwise; his aversion is logical, but logic is not the issue. The issue is autonomy and repulsion to condemning attitudes so prevalent among Christ’s followers.

The same can be said concerning ideas surrounding OS. Both sides of the issue have their share of logic, but it all boils down to our individual, unconditionally loving relationships with God and one another.

Should it not only be mortal sin if people have no respect for each other, have children to whoever they like, and not really care what they do?
I know you will say the latter are most likely without knowledge, blind, ignorant, or have psychological problems. And thats another question I’m trying to work out

As you may remember, I find no basis for “mortal sin”, because I’ve yet to find an example of people sinning when they know what they are doing. So, the questions are:

Why do people sometime disrespect one another?
Why are some people promiscuous?
Why do people sometimes not care?

These are all great questions. I think that almost all the time people do care, though, even though it may appear that they do not.

Psychological issues we have, many people suffer some form of issue during their life, so if the issue causes sin, is the person really in control?

Bingo. The answer is in the question. People are under the illusion that they cannot control their behaviors, that something underlying causes sin.

In fact, it is our choices that cause sin. The alcoholic does not robotically acquire booze and his arm forces the tipping of the beer. Sex between consenting people is a choice. Sure, we cannot control our anger, desires, and reactionary conscience, but we can certainly control all that we do with those impulses and emotions. It is a matter of empowerment.

Do we empower people by saying that they had better get their act together, or they are going straight to everlasting hell? The price of such an assertion is the depiction of a god who can hold it against you forever. If this makes sense to a person, then perhaps the fear approach would work. On the other hand, if the person sees that this unforgiving God idea conflicts with Love, then the threat of hell is going to go nowhere.

To me, addiction is a means of dealing with an underlying issue. It is better to deal with the issue than to use fear of God to control behaviors. Fear of destroying your family or hurting others, though, certainly has its place.

 

[OneSheep]

I am not the one in charge of restoring Sanctifying Grace in an individual’s soul. Therefore, there is no way I can compare my human actions with God’s forgiveness. I may be cranky, but I am still a female.

Grantankerous? You may be cranky, but you are quite lovable.

I think I may take this part of the conversation to a new thread. I think it would be great to ask our priests about the matter. Here is the issue:

1. Jesus asks us to forgive everyone unconditionally.
2. If we do so, we retain no one’s sins.
3. If we retain no one’s sins, how can we relate to a Jesus who retains sins?
4. If we do retain people’s sins, how does this promote forgiveness?

Two days ago, I spent 6 hours on a hike with a rather ultraconservative relative who constantly condemns democrats, Obama, environmentalists, etc. When I told him about Mark 11:25, he said that “those were the old days when the only people you had a beef with were those right next door.” But no, I said, Jesus’ contemporaries held great resentment against their occupier. He was silent about the condemning stuff for the rest of the walk, thank God, and spent more time enjoying the beauty of nature.

No. Please refer to CCC, 405-409.

This was your answer concerning a good God giving us concupiscence. In CCC 405-409, the assertion is that the human has an inclination to evil. Can you provide an example of such an inclination? The CCC falls far short of explaining what this inclination is in 405-409.

However, if concupiscence refers to human desire, and how we can be somewhat “possessed” by such desire, then there is reason for such a concupiscence to be given to us by God.

If God is a good God, and concupiscence is part of our nature, and c. is defined as an “inclination to evil”, then why would God add such an aspect to our being?

As for fundamental questions about God’s unconditional love and His forgiveness dependent on the individual’s sorrow for mortal sins which includes repentance and a sincere desire for God’s presence, Sanctifying Grace…I have used the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition which apparently is not acceptable. It is my unchangeable choice to use this universal Catechism when it comes to participation in the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I see that you are using the CCC to say that Jesus did not unconditionally forgive the crowd he referred to from the cross.

I refer my own relationship with Jesus, as well as the gospel, to assert that Abba forgives unconditionally, while you refer to the CCC to show that God does not. This is the recurring theme of our discussion.

Damage to our spiritual health occurs
when we refuse to accept the conditions for God’s forgiving restoration of His Sanctifying Grace in our soul. This damage is a preference for the material delights of remaining in the state of mortal sin.

Well, we can agree, as usual, with the damage of remaining unrepentant.

I know that there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change your mind about God loving and forgiving us conditionally, I think that you will probably take it to your grave.

Perhaps it is time for a little clarification in the CCC. I think, though, you would be probably be averse to a little more unfolding of revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Yes we are spiritual creatures:thumbsup:But not everyone is in union with the catholic church, they follow what they deem to be spiritual to them, as we have that free will to do, but we are told sometimes at church that we still need to pray for conversions. When the pope said people who do not believe in God could still get to heaven, he meant our God, Jesus, So what God are people believing in if it is not Jesus.

“People who do not believe in God could still get to heaven” is a real puzzlement of a proposal, no matter who proposes it. I trashed three drafts trying to figure it out before procrastinating to today.

:newidea: Finally…

To understand how people who do not believe in God could still get to heaven, one has to apply the old journalism mantra, Who? How? What? When? Where? Why? For this puzzlement, What, How, and Who will solve it.

This puzzlement has two completely different situations and thus two different answers to What. The first What is the situation of a person living on earth. The second What is the place called heaven which is definitely not the same as our lovable earth.

The first What also describes the person’s nature which is designed by God so that each individual can freely attain God’s Beatific Vision in heaven. The How is that we are in the image of God. Since we are spiritual, we have been given the opportunity to share in God’s spiritual life.

When it comes to Who, it becomes necessary to recognize God as being in charge of heaven and therefore He, as the Creator, has every right to determine the conditions for human creatures to enter His domain.

So far, so good?

The media’s story about not believing in God and still getting into heaven would be ruined if anyone bothered to check out the actual heaven conditions as taught in Catholicism. For example, one needs to be in the state of Sanctifying Grace to get through those pearly gates.

Humans, by their nature, have the innate ability to choose between the two situations verified in the opening of this reply. It should be obvious that a person, in the environment of earth, cannot watch football on TV and simultaneously be beyond his earthly environment in heaven’s eternal joy. Therefore, the reality is that what looks like a single proposition sentence actually contains an either - or situation.

I am sure someone will point out that the second isolated part of the prime time sound bite has these words: “could still get to heaven.” Unfortunately, because of lack of interest in the real Original Sin, there is a lack of understanding the difference between a person in the state of Sanctifying Grace and a person in the state of Mortal Sin.
The Catholic teaching is that “could still get to heaven” directly depends on the condition or state of the person’s soul while on earth.

In his love and respect for all humans, Pope Francis deftly left out the “responsibility conditions” for not believing in God. This is in keeping with Catholicism since we do not always know everything about an individual. The beauty of the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, properly accomplished, is that it assures us that we have been forgiven. With God’s unconditional love, Pope Francis opened the door to all peoples and then offered the possibility of choosing to believe in God. Once people can understand that being in heaven requires the basic condition of a personal conversion (via the Sacrament of Reconciliation) from being in the state of Mortal Sin to the state of Sanctifying Grace – from not believing in God to believing in God – then one can understand why not believing in God is really an either - or situation when coupled with an opposite situation such as believing in God’s heaven of joy eternal.

We need to pray for conversions of people stuck in Mortal Sin. Maybe it will be the magnificent Alaskan mountains which will touch someone’s soul so that the person realizes the power and beauty of God existence and then turns back to Him.
Maybe it will be a random act of kindness which will be a light to a soul in darkness.
Even when we are in the state of Sanctifying Grace, we need to “convert” ourselves away from those annoying venial sins.

 

[simpleas]

Well, moral codes are the result of insight. When the whole idea of commitment to marriage disintegrates, there are many problems down the line that it takes “seeing the big picture” in order to understand. The problem with moral codes is that so often the code is there without explaining all the suffering that led up to forming the code in the first place.

So, we can explain why a certain behavior is harmful down the road, and hopefully people will take ownership. Is a lack of commitment to marriage because of fear of their own ability to remain faithful? In that case, some communication in the pair would be fruitful. Is lack of commitment to God because people see a hypocrisy in Christianity, that we talk of a God of love but spend all of our time pointing fingers of condemnation?

So, yes, there is a place for saying when a behavior is wrong, but with people who are connected to Love within, it is going to take a lot of explanation. One of my godsons, who is currently an atheist, is getting married soon, outside of the church. He sees belief in God as harmful. He cannot be talked into anything otherwise; his aversion is logical, but logic is not the issue. The issue is autonomy and repulsion to condemning attitudes so prevalent among Christ’s followers.

The same can be said concerning ideas surrounding OS. Both sides of the issue have their share of logic, but it all boils down to our individual, unconditionally loving relationships with God and one another.

As you may remember, I find no basis for “mortal sin”, because I’ve yet to find an example of people sinning when they know what they are doing. So, the questions are:

Why do people sometime disrespect one another?
Why are some people promiscuous?
Why do people sometimes not care?

These are all great questions. I think that almost all the time people do care, though, even though it may appear that they do not.

Bingo. The answer is in the question. People are under the illusion that they cannot control their behaviors, that something underlying causes sin.

In fact, it is our choices that cause sin. The alcoholic does not robotically acquire booze and his arm forces the tipping of the beer. Sex between consenting people is a choice. Sure, we cannot control our anger, desires, and reactionary conscience, but we can certainly control all that we do with those impulses and emotions. It is a matter of empowerment.

Do we empower people by saying that they had better get their act together, or they are going straight to everlasting hell? The price of such an assertion is the depiction of a god who can hold it against you forever. If this makes sense to a person, then perhaps the fear approach would work. On the other hand, if the person sees that this unforgiving God idea conflicts with Love, then the threat of hell is going to go nowhere.

To me, addiction is a means of dealing with an underlying issue. It is better to deal with the issue than to use fear of God to control behaviors. Fear of destroying your family or hurting others, though, certainly has its place.

I agree that we as a people and our society can be affected by the choice of not being married when the bigger picture is looked at. I know people not married because they just want children, some unmarried for years with adult children etc, what (name removed by moderator)act these decisions will have…
But what i was getting at i tried to explain in my next post.

Mortal sin…if i’m right…you don’t believe it exists because you don’t believe that we can be separated from God?
We can choose to resist God knowingly, but he never leaves us? Would that be what you think?

*Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the “spiritual” death of the soul (separation from God). If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins. *

I’m sure you know this, and i think we have touched on this before in this thread, but we as catholics are supposed to believe this in order to receive salvation, personally I never thought that sin separated me from God, I thought I may have just offened him with my choice of words or action to another human, and that would be enough for me to feel bad enough to go to confession.

Today at mass the priest reminded us that we have a wounded nature, that we are unworthy, but we have a God that loves us so very much.

 

[OneSheep]

I agree that we as a people and our society can be affected by the choice of not being married when the bigger picture is looked at. I know people not married because they just want children, some unmarried for years with adult children etc, what (name removed by moderator)act these decisions will have…
But what i was getting at i tried to explain in my next post.

Mortal sin…if i’m right…you don’t believe it exists because you don’t believe that we can be separated from God?

Yes. To me, we can certainly ignore God, or not put effort to be in relation with God, but the image of the prodigal son’s Father is one of open arms. In addition, without God, we are nothing, non-existence.

I take a panentheistic approach. God is not everything, pantheism, or then we would have no autonomy whatsoever. But, to me, God is in everything.

We can choose to resist God knowingly, but he never leaves us? Would that be what you think?

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent

As we have been discussing, such mortal sin involves “full knowledge”, but the way I see it, sin does not occur when people have full knowledge. You and I have been working on this, and we may need to take on some more examples in order to be sure.

All sin involves ignorance or blindness. As far as I have been able to discern, we never knowingly choose to resist God. The people who hung Jesus did not knowingly choose to resist God, they thought they were doing a good thing, the right thing.

*Mortal sin is called mortal because it is the “spiritual” death of the soul (separation from God). If we are in the state of grace it loses this supernatural life for us. If we die without repenting we will lose Him for eternity. However, by turning our hearts back to Him and receiving the Sacrament of Penance we are restored to His friendship. Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion if they have unconfessed mortal sins. *

I’m sure you know this, and i think we have touched on this before in this thread, but we as catholics are supposed to believe this in order to receive salvation, personally I never thought that sin separated me from God, I thought I may have just offened him with my choice of words or action to another human, and that would be enough for me to feel bad enough to go to confession.

Today at mass the priest reminded us that we have a wounded nature, that we are unworthy, but we have a God that loves us so very much.

If this works for you, great! This is the use of fear in to scare us into repentance. If fear is what it takes, then that is a good fear. Go with that.

As you may remember, I don’t see that God takes offense. When we choose the wrong words or actions, these are predictable events that are the logical outcome when we are blind and/or ignorant. Would an all-knowing God, fully prepared for such sin, react negatively? Did not God make the choice to create us fully knowing every sin we would ever commit? He did, and He created us anyway, and loves us anyway.

Or does God know that He is going to be angry a billion or so times today, and again tomorrow and again the next day? I know, God is unfathomable, but that is a lot of anger. I can look upon most sin and not get angry, I can see it as predictable and understand. God has to be at least as understanding as I am, IMO.

 

[grannymh]

Yes. To me, we can certainly ignore God, or not put effort to be in relation with God, but the image of the prodigal son’s Father is one of open arms. In addition, without God, we are nothing, non-existence.

I take a panentheistic approach. God is not everything, pantheism, or then we would have no autonomy whatsoever. But, to me, God is in everything.

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent

As we have been discussing, such mortal sin involves “full knowledge”, but the way I see it, sin does not occur when people have full knowledge. You and I have been working on this, and we may need to take on some more examples in order to be sure.

All sin involves ignorance or blindness. As far as I have been able to discern, we never knowingly choose to resist God. The people who hung Jesus did not knowingly choose to resist God, they thought they were doing a good thing, the right thing.

If this works for you, great! This is the use of fear in to scare us into repentance. If fear is what it takes, then that is a good fear. Go with that.

As you may remember, I don’t see that God takes offense. When we choose the wrong words or actions, these are predictable events that are the logical outcome when we are blind and/or ignorant. Would an all-knowing God, fully prepared for such sin, react negatively? Did not God make the choice to create us fully knowing every sin we would ever commit? He did, and He created us anyway, and loves us anyway.

Or does God know that He is going to be angry a billion or so times today, and again tomorrow and again the next day? I know, God is unfathomable, but that is a lot of anger. I can look upon most sin and not get angry, I can see it as predictable and understand. God has to be at least as understanding as I am, IMO.

From the post 860. “All sin involves ignorance or blindness. As far as I have been able to discern, we never knowingly choose to resist God.”

How sad and how far this and former proposals are from Catholicism and its teachings on the spiritual nature of the human person and the relationship between humanity and divinity.

 

[OneSheep]

From the post. “All sin involves ignorance or blindness. As far as I have been able to discern, we never knowingly choose to resist God.”

How sad and how far this and former proposals are from Catholicism and its teachings on the nature of the human person and the relationship between humanity and divinity.

Yes, you continue to assert that we knowingly choose to resist God, but you have never come up with an example. This is “it is true because it says so”.

If this is what you see as truth, please provide an example. I have provided many examples that support the conclusion that all sin involves ignorance and blindness, and you have provided none.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, you continue to assert that we knowingly choose to resist God, but you have never come up with an example. This is “it is true because it says so”.

If this is what you see as truth, please provide an example. I have provided many examples that support the conclusion that all sin involves ignorance and blindness, and you have provided none.

The example is Mortal Sin. Mortal Sin will continue to be the example. Denial of Mortal Sin is not a good thing.

Mortal Sin is opposition to God’s law. Please check out the Ten Commandments and the basic directive to love God and neighbor. You may use any example of Mortal Sin. All Mortal Sins destroy the Divine life in the soul of the sinner is the better example of resisting God.

From the post 860. “All sin involves ignorance or blindness. As far as I have been able to discern, we never knowingly choose to resist God.” — This is a good example of denying human nature. This is also a good example of denying that we are in the image of God, because, in essence, this example denies the spiritual soul’s rational intellect and free will.

How sad these denials are because they mislead readers.

 

[OneSheep]

The example is Mortal Sin. Mortal Sin will continue to be the example. Denial of Mortal Sin is not a good thing.

Mortal Sin is opposition to God’s law. Please check out the Ten Commandments and the basic directive to love God and neighbor. You may use any example of Mortal Sin. All Mortal Sins destroy the Divine life in the soul of the sinner is the better example of resisting God.

From the post 860. “All sin involves ignorance or blindness. As far as I have been able to discern, we never knowingly choose to resist God.” — This is a good example of denying human nature. This is also a good example of denying that we are in the image of God, because, in essence, this example denies the spiritual soul’s rational intellect and free will.

How sad these denials are because they mislead readers.

I’m sorry, granny, we are simply not connecting here. I am asking for you to give me an example of any sin, mortal or not, that does not involve ignorance or blindness.

“Mortal Sin” is defined as taking place with full knowledge. I am asking you to give an example of such. When you do so, we can discuss it. In the mean time, we are going in circles. Please give a specific example of a sin that was committed with “full knowledge”.

Remember, granny, we have intellect but are not omniscient. In addition, we have free will, but our choices are limited to what we know. This is not denial, this is the truth. It is our nature to do good, because we have all been given a conscience. It is in our nature to love and be loved. The problem is our ignorance and blindness.