Psychology of Original Sin?

[webmasterpdx]

Benadam, isn’t that what I said? Jesus while alive could not or would not need to throw anything into the unconscious. i.e. He was aware of his sin at all times, which is why he didn’t sin. The part that is new that I am suggesting is that in the garden of Gethsemane, the pain of our guilt got dumped on his shoulders, and he felt the pain of it all, being unable to throw it into his unconscious. Effectively, he went to hell while alive. However, when he died, he retained his God consciousness where he had the same level as those who ate of the tree of knowledge (remember in Genesis God said that he had that same ability). So, when he died, he could then throw the guilt into oblivian. However, that part is a bit hokey, as I’m implying that guilt is something that we can give to someone else. I’ll definitely need to meditate on this some more.
To all, yes, this is just an idea to ponder, nothing more…

 

[Benadam]

webmasterpdx, this is why I call you to refine what you write.

You wrote:

He was aware of his sin at all times, which is why he didn’t sin.

This is not true. He had no sin to be aware of, therefore He is not in a state that you claim.

The part that is new that I am suggesting is that in the garden of Gethsemane, the pain of our guilt got dumped on his shoulders, and he felt the pain of it all, being unable to throw it into his unconscious. Effectively, he went to hell while alive.

Hell is the loss of God. The loss of the source of life. This is not what Jesus experienced in the Garden. If He did He couldn’t have said " your will not mine. When Jesus died He didn’t enter hell as in a rejection of God, but He entered into a state of separation of body and soul. Just as all the departed before Him.

However, when he died, he retained his God consciousness where he had the same level as those who ate of the tree of knowledge (remember in Genesis God said that he had that same ability). So, when he died, he could then throw the guilt into oblivian.

The kind of knowing of evil for Adam and Eve required a state of ‘being’. Not so for God.He knows evil in a deeper way without being evil. Evil in the sense that it is that which ‘lacks good’. So as an ability to know, there is a vast difference between us and God knowing evil.

as I’m implying that guilt is something that we can give to someone else.

true dat my friend. But only to an errant conscience and as Saint Paul wrote in great gratitude, " god is greater than our conscience".

. I’ll definitely need to meditate on this some more.

To all, yes, this is just an idea to ponder, nothing more…

A good idea too I think. That God’s ability to wipe out the past and pondering how it might be relevant to our unfallen and or fallen state is good I would say. I’m enjoying your thoughts and they are new to me.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The part that is new that I am suggesting is that in the garden of Gethsemane, the pain of our guilt got dumped on his shoulders, and he felt the pain of it all, being unable to throw it into his unconscious.

Jesus did not need to get baptised, he was already sinless. It seems our sins were heaped on Jesus at the time Jesus was baptised, it was our sins being forgiven. Just a thought.

 

[Benadam]

refining what I wrote as well:blush:

. So, when he died, he could then throw the guilt into oblivian.

When Jesus experienced our guilt is was not His guilt. In Him it was a good that became a part of Himself. Him being all of us as one man. It was a supernatural good that prepared Him for a greater human perfection. Not a reality to throw out into nothingness.
but a reality that became part of His Passion.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Note that nothing I’m saying here is contradicting the Catholic catechism. It’s just a possible explanation for how it all works, rather than the usual cop out answer “it’s a mystery”, that I dislike so much…except for maybe what Jesus experienced…that’s all just a suggestion. There is also some scriptural support for this idea.

When someone who has been offended by another person remembers that he must forgive his brother seventy times seven, he tries to find a justification for the actions of his brother, that is to say, an explanation that would reveal his hidden innocence. Sometimes he “succeeds”, but then, if the explanation were true, it should become clear to him as well that it was him who was the real offender, because he was thinking wrongly of his brother. Then he must find a “justification” for himself too. And the explanation can be that he just missunderstood the situation without further reflection. So, he forgives himself generously.

But then, other day his brother repeats the offense and he is disturbed: it becomes apparent that he had not misunderstood the situation the first time! It was a real offense! And now it becomes very hard for him to “forgive” his brother (and it is just the second time!). He even finds it difficult to forgive himself for being so stupid last time. It is really the moment in which he might forgive, but he can’t: His brother is guilty.

So what is guilt and in what does forgiveness consist?

Let’s suppose both persons meet and the offender recognizes his guilt (even whithout understanding precisely what it is), and asks the other for forgiveness (even whithout understanding precisely what it is). Then, the offended grants him forgiveness. What does it imply (if it is done the right way, whatever it means)? Does it have to do with throwing something into oblivion, or into the unconscious, or somewhere else?

Surely the offender has had to modify his mind in relation to the other; and perhaps he has had to annihilate certain actions that were evolving in his being against the other. As for the offended, when he grants forgiveness he accepts the possibility of continuing with a relation that had been broken due to the offense; and perhaps he also will have to annihilate some revengeful actions that were maturing in his mind. Is this re-structuring of their being what we call “justification” (to become just), and the willingness to restart the relationship what we call “forgiveness”? Is guilt a modification of our being towards another that tends to impair the relationship, and even destroy (at least partially, if it is possible) the being of the other? Or is it really something that can be thrown away?