Unconditional love of God?

[glendab]

Hello Granny.

May I lay a foundation for a different road to answering your concerns?

First, would you be able to examine the natural difference between God the Creator and Adam the creature? For example. We need to know why Adam had to eat food as nourishment so that he could live. (Genesis 1 :29)

No, I don’t need a different foundation, but if you’d like to offer yours, that’s fine. There really isn’t anything to know about Adam. He was a man and all men eat, so he ate. God provided all the food for Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. It just grew there on the trees and bushes. Man didn’t need to kill for meat or clothing. God did that for them after the fall so they wouldn’t leave Eden naked and without a clue as to what to do to survive without God providing anymore. Adam had to by the sweat of his brow.

The beauty of Genesis is that it is a very simple story, one even children can understand, yet its depth goes beyond our sometimes complicated thinking.

Does that help Granny?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Hope. Nice of you to reply.

Hello glendab,

We don’t need to have knowledge to understand the unconditionnal love of God.
God is the love source; He loves each one of us infinitely, with our sins and when we ask Him to forgive us, He does it with love.

Good night!

hope19

As I’ve said before, I don’t think there is a such a thing as an unconditional love of God for me. he has conditions on His love such as the Ten Commandments and the Precepts of the Church. I am positive that the meaning of the Scripture passage found in the First Letter of St. John, Chapter 5, verse 3 is the Truth for us: “for the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” That is truth enough for me.

I feel no need to adopt a Protestant theology of “unconditional” love of God for me. And that is exactly what it is - Protestant theology. I’ve had too many Protestants agree that it belongs to them to remain unaware of its origin. I agree with them that it is theirs. It has crept into our conversations from them. It isn’t healthy to keep if you ask me. You cannot find the phrase in the Bible. It doesn’t exist. It is simply a warm and fuzzy notion that if believed relieves the mind of the reality of having to do things, such as works, to co-operate in God’s Salvific actions on our behalf personally.

To fall for it is to accept part of a OSAS theology. It negates much Catholic teaching in a few simple words. “Accept the unconditional love of God and be saved” from having to obey Him. A very slick package if you ask me. It is almost like a little child expecting to get out of being punished by mom or dad simply because mom and dad love them!

If I ever experience the Love of God for me personally in an unbounded way, I will have passed from this life to the next. I’d be in Heaven. If I ever want to get there then I’d better accept that there are things I must do to get there - like the above Scripture says - the Commandments are the place to start along with loving my neighbor and myself and giving alms and going to Church and fasting and abstaining on the days proscribed, etc. CONDITIONS… These are all conditions placed on me by God so I CAN one day enjoy my eternity with Him in Heaven. He loves me so He gave me the Law. I love Him so I keep it.

Glenda

 

[clem456]

Hello Hope. Nice of you to reply.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think there is a such a thing as an unconditional love of God for me. he has conditions on His love such as the Ten Commandments and the Precepts of the Church. I am positive that the meaning of the Scripture passage found in the First Letter of St. John, Chapter 5, verse 3 is the Truth for us: “for the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” That is truth enough for me.

I feel no need to adopt a Protestant theology of “unconditional” love of God for me. And that is exactly what it is - Protestant theology. I’ve had too many Protestants agree that it belongs to them to remain unaware of its origin. I agree with them that it is theirs. It has crept into our conversations from them. It isn’t healthy to keep if you ask me. You cannot find the phrase in the Bible. It doesn’t exist. It is simply a warm and fuzzy notion that if believed relieves the mind of the reality of having to do things, such as works, to co-operate in God’s Salvific actions on our behalf personally.

**To fall for it is to accept part of a OSAS theology. It negates much Catholic teaching in a few simple words. ** “Accept the unconditional love of God and be saved” from having to obey Him. A very slick package if you ask me. It is almost like a little child expecting to get out of being punished by mom or dad simply because mom and dad love them!

If I ever experience the Love of God for me personally in an unbounded way, I will have passed from this life to the next. I’d be in Heaven. If I ever want to get there then I’d better accept that there are things I must do to get there - like the above Scripture says - the Commandments are the place to start along with loving my neighbor and myself and giving alms and going to Church and fasting and abstaining on the days proscribed, etc. CONDITIONS… These are all conditions placed on me by God so I CAN one day enjoy my eternity with Him in Heaven. He loves me so He gave me the Law. I love Him so I keep it.

Glenda

There is still confusion on a couple of issues. No sense in pointing those out, it would be redundant in this thread.
And the bolded part is plain wrong. This is a serious charge to throw around…“protestant”. Insulting to Catholics and Protestants both.

Can you address the quotes from the catechism, the saints, popes, scripture, etc,…?
Or can you not?
The conversation is going in circles. It would be beneficial if you could directly address what the Church teaches.

 

[hope19]

Hello Hope. Nice of you to reply.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think there is a such a thing as an unconditional love of God for me. he has conditions on His love such as the Ten Commandments and the Precepts of the Church. I am positive that the meaning of the Scripture passage found in the First Letter of St. John, Chapter 5, verse 3 is the Truth for us: “for the love of God is this, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” That is truth enough for me.

I feel no need to adopt a Protestant theology of “unconditional” love of God for me. And that is exactly what it is - Protestant theology. I’ve had too many Protestants agree that it belongs to them to remain unaware of its origin. I agree with them that it is theirs. It has crept into our conversations from them. It isn’t healthy to keep if you ask me. You cannot find the phrase in the Bible. It doesn’t exist. It is simply a warm and fuzzy notion that if believed relieves the mind of the reality of having to do things, such as works, to co-operate in God’s Salvific actions on our behalf personally.

To fall for it is to accept part of a OSAS theology. It negates much Catholic teaching in a few simple words. “Accept the unconditional love of God and be saved” from having to obey Him. A very slick package if you ask me. It is almost like a little child expecting to get out of being punished by mom or dad simply because mom and dad love them!

If I ever experience the Love of God for me personally in an unbounded way, I will have passed from this life to the next. I’d be in Heaven. If I ever want to get there then I’d better accept that there are things I must do to get there - like the above Scripture says - the Commandments are the place to start along with loving my neighbor and myself and giving alms and going to Church and fasting and abstaining on the days proscribed, etc. CONDITIONS… These are all conditions placed on me by God so I CAN one day enjoy my eternity with Him in Heaven. He loves me so He gave me the Law. I love Him so I keep it.

Glenda

God loves everyone who is in the Church or not in the Church. You don’t need to be in the Church to be loved by God. For humans, yes, but not for God. I understand more the scripture passage like this: If we want to go to Heaven, we have to follow God’s commandement, but if we not follow His commandements, he loves us also. I think it is better to follow the teaching of the Church on that instead of interpreting it personnaly.

If everyone would accept the unconditionnal love and mercy of God, everyone would be saved, but it is not the case. A lot of people reject God from their life. God doesn’t punich. Humans punishes themselves by commiting sins. God can’t punish. He is the love source.

If we can’t directly feel God’s love, it is because WE, humans, chose it by commiting original sin. It is a consequence of not obeying to God and we punished ourselves by that.

Even if you are not following the commandements, God loves you.
I think you are representing God like humans are.

hope19

 

[glendab]

Hello Hope. Thanks for the reply. I have a few difficulties with some of your reply.

God loves everyone who is in the Church or not in the Church. You don’t need to be in the Church to be loved by God. For humans, yes, but not for God. I understand more the scripture passage like this: If we want to go to Heaven, we have to follow God’s commandement, but if we not follow His commandements, he loves us also. I think it is better to follow the teaching of the Church on that instead of interpreting it personnaly.

If everyone would accept the unconditionnal love and mercy of God, everyone would be saved, but it is not the case. A lot of people reject God from their life. God doesn’t punich. Humans punishes themselves by commiting sins. God can’t punish. He is the love source.

If we can’t directly feel God’s love, it is because WE, humans, chose it by commiting original sin. It is a consequence of not obeying to God and we punished ourselves by that.

Even if you are not following the commandements, God loves you.
I think you are representing God like humans are.

hope19

You say that “if everyone would accept the unconditional love and mercy of God, everyone would be saved.” Nice try. But by adding the word “mercy” to the statement doesn’t take away the OSAS pitch.

You say that “God can’t punish.” God can do anything He wills. He wiped mankind from the face of the earth at the flood - that is a punishment. Hell exists. It is punishment from God. Eternal punishment from God. He can and does punish. Jesus being the “love source” doesn’t negate His ability to punish man for sins.

You say that our inability to “feel God’s love” is somehow tied to the Original sin that you say is committed by us humans. Original sin is inherited, not committed and has nothing to do with our ability to feel love. BTW, feeling loved doesn’t mean you are. Feelings aren’t facts. You can be loved and never be aware of it. You can love in a disordered way. Measuring things by what you feel isn’t smart, especially if you’re implying that if God loves you and you are “saved” accepting His “unconditional” love then you’re supposed to *feel something *that assures you of your salvation, then I’m afraid you have deviated too far for my taste from Catholicism.

Thanks for trying though.

Glenda

P.S. I’ve rejected you PM’s and told you not to PM me. Please don’t. I don’t need to be saved.

 

[hope19]

Hello Hope. Thanks for the reply. I have a few difficulties with some of your reply.

You say that “if everyone would accept the unconditional love and mercy of God, everyone would be saved.” Nice try. But by adding the word “mercy” to the statement doesn’t take away the OSAS pitch.

You say that “God can’t punish.” God can do anything He wills. He wiped mankind from the face of the earth at the flood - that is a punishment. Hell exists. It is punishment from God. Eternal punishment from God. He can and does punish. Jesus being the “love source” doesn’t negate His ability to punish man for sins.

You say that our inability to “feel God’s love” is somehow tied to the Original sin that you say is committed by us humans. Original sin is inherited, not committed and has nothing to do with our ability to feel love. BTW, feeling loved doesn’t mean you are. Feelings aren’t facts. You can be loved and never be aware of it. You can love in a disordered way. Measuring things by what you feel isn’t smart, especially if you’re implying that if God loves you and you are “saved” accepting His “unconditional” love then you’re supposed to *feel something *that assures you of your salvation, then I’m afraid you have deviated too far for my taste from Catholicism.

Thanks for trying though.

Glenda

P.S. I’ve rejected you PM’s and told you not to PM me. Please don’t. I don’t need to be saved.

Just by rejecting me, I don’t want to answer you, so if you want to be angry at me, go see somewhere else. I will let other people answer you.

Thanks for trying.

 

[glendab]

Hello Clem. Thanks for another reply.

There is still confusion on a couple of issues. No sense in pointing those out, it would be redundant in this thread.
And the bolded part is plain wrong. This is a serious charge to throw around…“protestant”. Insulting to Catholics and Protestants both.

Can you address the quotes from the catechism, the saints, popes, scripture, etc,…?
Or can you not?
The conversation is going in circles. It would be beneficial if you could directly address what the Church teaches.

Yes, Clem, I read all of your posts. I have a very good library at home here, and do have a couple of catechisms, more than one Bible, even a Latin one. I also have quite a few books written by saints. and more than one encyclical by the Popes. None of them contain the phrase “unconditional love of God.” Nor do your quotes, unless you want to either ADD it, or IMPLY it is there as it is meant. Anyone can cut and paste here as long as one has access to the web sources. It doesn’t prove anything.

I think since you quoted, you should show where it is. Find the phrase “unconditional love of God” in the writings of the Saints and post it here. I’d love to see it.

It is an error. And my personal opinion of it is simply that it is dangerous. I don’t need to accept it to be a good Catholic. It isn’t part of our teaching.

God’s love, yes I accept that. I am loved deeply. I know it from the center of my being. It is a fact of my existence. But the notion of an “unconditional love of God” is different. You may think it is simply semantics, but it isn’t.

Oh well. I’ve tried to help. But I don’t think it did. Clem, if you want to believe in an “unconditional love of God” for you, then by all means do. That is your right. It is okay for you. But don’t expect others to adopt your view of its innocuous nature. I’ll repeat it: it is a slippery slope down which many have slid into sin and presumption.

Glenda

 

[hope19]

Hello Clem. Thanks for another reply.

Yes, Clem, I read all of your posts. I have a very good library at home here, and do have a couple of catechisms, more than one Bible, even a Latin one. I also have quite a few books written by saints. and more than one encyclical by the Popes. None of them contain the phrase “unconditional love of God.” Nor do your quotes, unless you want to either ADD it, or IMPLY it is there as it is meant. Anyone can cut and paste here as long as one has access to the web sources. It doesn’t prove anything.

I think since you quoted, you should show where it is. Find the phrase “unconditional love of God” in the writings of the Saints and post it here. I’d love to see it.

It is an error. And my personal opinion of it is simply that it is dangerous. I don’t need to accept it to be a good Catholic. It isn’t part of our teaching.

God’s love, yes I accept that. I am loved deeply. I know it from the center of my being. It is a fact of my existence. But the notion of an “unconditional love of God” is different. You may think it is simply semantics, but it isn’t.

Oh well. I’ve tried to help. But I don’t think it did. Clem, if you want to believe in an “unconditional love of God” for you, then by all means do. That is your right. It is okay for you. But don’t expect others to adopt your view of its innocuous nature. I’ll repeat it: it is a slippery slope down which many have slid into sin and presumption.

Glenda

You should try to be more open to what we say to explain to you about this thread since of interpreting by yourself.

 

[clem456]

Hello Clem. Thanks for another reply.

Yes, Clem, I read…

Glenda

Ok.
So again… can you, or can you not, address the direct teaching of the Church that has been posted that deal with the nature of God’s love? Can you do that without semantic games?
I think a good practice is to take a passage from the catechism or a writing from a Pope, quote it, and give a rebuttal, rather than attack the poster.

 

[glendab]

Clem,

Are you not reading what I wrote?

Ok.
So again… can you, or can you not, address the direct teaching of the Church that has been posted that deal with the nature of God’s love? Can you do that without semantic games?
I think a good practice is to take a passage from the catechism or a writing from a Pope, quote it, and give a rebuttal, rather than attack the poster.

I’m not attacking you, I’m disagreeing with you.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Oh Clem,

I almost skipped this, but since you want rebuttal about Scriptures, how come you’ve ignored the Scriptures I’ve used to support some of the discussion, especially the passage from Malachi? You’ve ignored Genesis, John and the talk about the flood.

So, whose not responding? Me?

Please don’t feel personally attacked. That is not my intent.

Glenda

 

[hope19]

Oh Clem,

I almost skipped this, but since you want rebuttal about Scriptures, how come you’ve ignored the Scriptures I’ve used to support some of the discussion, especially the passage from Malachi? You’ve ignored Genesis, John and the talk about the flood.

So, whose not responding? Me?

Please don’t feel personally attacked. That is not my intent.

Glenda

The Church is guided by the HOLY SPIRIT.
So, if they teach something, it has more chances to be true than false and stop attacking posters.

 

[clem456]

Oh Clem,

I almost skipped this, but since you want rebuttal about Scriptures, how come you’ve ignored the Scriptures I’ve used to support some of the discussion, especially the passage from Malachi? You’ve ignored Genesis, John and the talk about the flood.

So, whose not responding? Me?

Please don’t feel personally attacked. That is not my intent.

Glenda

What do you expect when people post Church teaching and you bring the “protestant” label out?

Think about this for a second. You have expressed hearty agreement with I believe three posters in this thread. One of them identifies as “deist former Catholic”, another as “skeptical theist”, another as “believer in the Lord Jesus Christ”, while disagreeing with posters who are Catholic and post Catholic teaching.
This is not to disparage anyone’s beliefs whatsoever. We respect everyone’s beliefs even if not in agreement. But you may want to consider that your assertion of “protestant” theology is at odds with the reality you are being presented with.

This is a pretty clear statement that God’s love is unconditional:

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”
…
CHAPTER ONE
MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. **For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.**1

29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19 § 1) **can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.**3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4

30 "Let the hearts of those who seek the LORD rejoice."5 Although man can forget God or reject him, He never ceases to call every man to seek him, so as to find life and happiness. But this search for God demands of man every effort of intellect, a sound will, “an upright heart”, as well as the witness of others who teach him to seek God.

vatican.va/holy_father/be…as-est_en.html

1. We have seen that God’s eros for man is also totally agape. This is not only because it is bestowed in a completely gratuitous manner, without any previous merit, but also because it is love which forgives. Hosea above all shows us that this agape dimension of God’s love for man goes far beyond the aspect of gratuity. Israel has committed “adultery” and has broken the covenant; God should judge and repudiate her. It is precisely at this point that God is revealed to be God and not man: “How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel! … My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst” (Hos 11:8-9). God’s passionate love for his people—for humanity—is at the same time a forgiving love. It is so great that it turns God against himself, his love against his justice. Here Christians can see a dim prefigurement of the mystery of the Cross: so great is God’s love for man that by becoming man he follows him even into death, and so reconciles justice and love.

So what is it you disagree with here regarding the unconditional nature of God’s love? Not our love, God’s love. Can you be specific about what it is in Church teaching you disagree with?

 

[clem456]

Regarding the proper perspective on the commandments in the Christian life:
Galatians 2

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”[e]

No human being, ever has, or ever will, earn God’s love through following the law.
Mary is our sinless example of living in God’s love. The angel recognizes her thus:

Hail, full of grace

Though she followed the law, she did not earn God’s love by following the commandments, it is a gift (grace) from God, gratuitously poured out to her. We can follow the commandments primarily because we are loved by God, because as Paul says above, “Christ lives in us”. We deceive ourselves if we believe we can perfectly follow them in order to earn God’s love.

God’s love cannot be earned.

 

[fhansen]

God’s love cannot be earned.

Yes! What condition does a person need to fulfill in order to be loved by God? As a believer can say-and anyone else who comes to believe in and therefore to know the love of God: “We love Him because He first loved us”. 1 John 4:19

 

[Tom_Baum]

Okie dokie Tom!

First off, Fear of the Lord is one of the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, see CCC #1831 and renders those who receive it docile to the workings of the Spirit. I cannot imagine living without it. It keeps things in perspective for me, personally.

Secondly, you said following Jesus isn’t about following His Church, His Word or His Saints but by some twist of imagination about following Him is done by the exclusion of His Word, is Church and His Saints. This is utter nonsense and coming from a professed Catholic, is serious error.

Thirdly, you say this: “If God is going to do something that doesn’t fit into our “rules” for what God is allowed to do, does this mean that God can not do it?” to which I’ll simply ask if the Pope bound something here on earth, would it not also be bound in Heaven? A rule for instance. Please answer carefully. The rules he makes for us ARE our rules. The virtue of their universality is a simple demonstration of this. God is at the other end of the Holy Fathers keys. Always was, always will be. God allows Himself to be bound by them. Jesus stood their as He handed them to St. Peter and said “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven.” Matthew 16:19. For an understanding of this allowing Himself to be bound by mere humans I’d refer you back to His conversation with St. John the Baptist that was in this past Sunday’s readings: “allow it now, for thus it fitting…” Jesus’ words to St. John.

Fourthly, you imply that by rejecting a Protestant notion of an “unconditional” love I’m somehow rejecting Pentecost and Catholic mysticism! That is silliness. There really isn’t any mystical quality to the Protestant notion of an “unconditional” love of God that saves me. I had it explained to me plainly: God loves me unconditionally. He died for me out of love and that is why I’m saved, if I accept it that way, etc…which to me is hogwash.

And another thing. You say this: “Do you consider God your Saviour or do you consider yourself your saviour thru your efforts to “earn” your salvation?” This I your response to my stating that God loves me and that His love for me isn’t what saves me which is very true. I would expect the refutation of my statement to come right from a Protestant! You say that by denying an unconditional love of God that saves me, I’ve denied His salvation. Poppycock!

Oh well Tom. If I’ve failed to make my points clear to your understanding, I apologize. Sorry. But I will continue to believe that God’s love does contain conditions. I love the Law. You don’t see the value in this. I’ll pray for you that your eyes may be opened.

Glenda

As far as “First off”, I just mentioned that “Fear of the Lord” has absolutely nothing to do with the usual definition of fear.

As far as Secondly, we are the Church, are we suppose to follow ourselves?, Jesus’s invitation was not to follow one of His followers but to follow Him, isn’t that what He asked?, As far as “by the exclusion of His Word, is Church and His Saints”, I did NOT say that, what I said was Jesus’s invitation was to “Come follow Me”, He did NOT say come follow My Church, come follow what is written about Me, come follow one of My followers, not even close, His invitation was to “Come follow Me”, I am not telling you or anyone else just how to follow Jesus and no one can tell anyone else just how to follow Jesus.

As far as Thirdly, when you referred to Jesus’s Baptism, “I’d refer you back to His conversation with St. John the Baptist that was in this past Sunday’s readings: “allow it now, for thus it fitting…” Jesus’ words to St. John”, ever given any thought to why Jesus might have said this?, Ever heard of the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sin?, Think that this baptism could be that “one baptism for the forgiveness of sin” and that is why Jesus insisted on being baptized by John?

As far as Fourthly, I suppose that the phrase “unconditional love of God” could mean many different things to many different people but I “know” that Love Is God’s Very Being in that Love is NOT an attribute of God but could be said to be God’s Very Essence, all else flows from this fact.

I don’t quite understand what you are saying in your “And another thing” statement but what I tried to say was that you can not “earn” salvation, you can accept it.

You then wrote, “I love the Law.”, actually the “Law” is God and since God Is a Being of Love than the “Law” Is "Love., it is that simple.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes! What condition does a person need to fulfill in order to be loved by God? As a believer can say-and anyone else who comes to believe in and therefore to know the love of God: “We love Him because He first loved us”. 1 John 4:19

I know that it is beyond my ability to conceive of and I believe it is beyond any human beings’ ability to conceive of but God Is a Being of Love in that Love is NOT an attribute of God but God’s Very Being, so the question you asked, I ask back to you, “What condition does a person need to fulfill in order to be loved by Love?”

Seems to me that about the only “condition” that I can think of would be to be created by this Being of Love?

Can you think of any other “condition”?

“And it was good”, isn’t this what God said concerning God’s creation?

God’s Plan will come to Fruition.

 

[fhansen]

I know that it is beyond my ability to conceive of and I believe it is beyond any human beings’ ability to conceive of but God Is a Being of Love in that Love is NOT an attribute of God but God’s Very Being, so the question you asked, I ask back to you, “What condition does a person need to fulfill in order to be loved by Love?”

Seems to me that about the only “condition” that I can think of would be to be created by this Being of Love?

Can you think of any other “condition”?

“And it was good”, isn’t this what God said concerning God’s creation?

God’s Plan will come to Fruition.

Yes, that was the point.

 

[grannymh]

Hello Granny.

No, I don’t need a different foundation, but if you’d like to offer yours, that’s fine. There really isn’t anything to know about Adam. He was a man and all men eat, so he ate. God provided all the food for Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. It just grew there on the trees and bushes. Man didn’t need to kill for meat or clothing. God did that for them after the fall so they wouldn’t leave Eden naked and without a clue as to what to do to survive without God providing anymore. Adam had to by the sweat of his brow.

The beauty of Genesis is that it is a very simple story, one even children can understand, yet its depth goes beyond our sometimes complicated thinking.

Does that help Granny?

Glenda

I chose Adam because I was replying to post 12 which said:
“First, the notion that we are the ones to make conditions isn’t accurate. In the Garden of Eden, there were conditions made by God, and it was Adam and Eve’s failure to live up to those conditions which created for all mankind more conditions. Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden because of consequences that came about because of their failure to live within the conditions placed upon them by God. Adam and Eve didn’t make the conditions, God did.”

By using a different foundation for answering these concerns, we will have a better chance for attaining the truth. My apology. I probably should use basis instead of foundation.

My observation is that the thread’s concern about “unconditional love” is based or founded on the basic question “Who made the conditions?” That is a valid question; however, it is necessary to first understand the natures of both “who Adam” *and *“who God”.

From granny’s post 57.
“We need to know why Adam had to eat food as nourishment so that he could live. (Genesis 1 :29)”

From post 60:
“There really isn’t anything to know about Adam. He was a man and all men eat, so he ate.”

Yes, Adam was a man; but God is not a man and that is a major difference between the two principals in the question – Who made the conditions?

The key reason why Adam had to eat food as nourishment is because the condition of his human nature is an unique unification of the spiritual and material. His material anatomy needed material food. The condition of God’s Divine nature does not require material food.

What I am doing is to broaden the definition of condition which is necessary for this thread’s discussion. We are evaluating the actions of two extremely different natures, human and Divine, which are in a relationship per the first three chapters of Genesis.

If there is agreement that God and Adam had a relationship in the Garden, pre-Fall, then we have to know the conditions for that relationship and why those conditions have to necessarily exist between a Divine nature and a human nature. (References: Genesis 1: 27; CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730-1732; CCC, 396)

Agreed or not regarding a relationship between God the Creator and our ancestor in the Garden as originally described in post 12?

Agreement assumes that this original relationship continues with us today. (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898 )

 

[glendab]

Hello Clem.

What do you expect when people post Church teaching and you bring the “protestant” label out?

Think about this for a second. You have expressed hearty agreement with I believe three posters in this thread. One of them identifies as “deist former Catholic”, another as “skeptical theist”, another as “believer in the Lord Jesus Christ”, while disagreeing with posters who are Catholic and post Catholic teaching.
This is not to disparage anyone’s beliefs whatsoever. We respect everyone’s beliefs even if not in agreement. But you may want to consider that your assertion of “protestant” theology is at odds with the reality you are being presented with.

This is a pretty clear statement that God’s love is unconditional:

vatican.va/holy_father/be…as-est_en.html

So what is it you disagree with here regarding the unconditional nature of God’s love? Not our love, God’s love. Can you be specific about what it is in Church teaching you disagree with?

You continue to attack me and accuse me of not believing in the “unconditional love of God” which you seem to think exists and not only exists, but is a doctrine.

Your quotes do prove one thing for me: that the word “unconditional” isn’t found in them. What is found in them is this: that God forgives and that is His love expressed. But we as Catholics know there is much we are to do to attain forgiveness of our sins and redemption. If we do these things, that is meet certain conditions, then we stand a chance of being redeemed. Some of these things are Penance, Confession, contrition, good deeds, obeying the Commandments, loving our neighbor neigh even our enemies, etc. But none of this gains us Heaven. It is God’s work of Redemption with which we co-operate that gains us Heaven with Purgatory first! We live by His conditions.

Why are you continuing to ignore the Scripture passage that shows God’s hate towards men? (Malachi 1:3) Why aren’t you commenting on the Fall of man in the Garden? Why ignore the flood I brought up? If I were to mention Hell and it’s reality, would you feel the need to prove it doesn’t exist because God loves you? And Hell isn’t an acceptable reality to one who thinks God’s love is what saves him or her? Malachi 1:4 “…And they shall be called the land of guilt, the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.”

Your silence is doing more than you know.

I’ve already stated numerous times that I know God loves me. But I am also quick to say He does so with CONDITIONS which I accept. Why is it so hard for you to see the love of the Law as profitable to one’s soul? Is it because your own perception is skewed? You’ll never admit it here, but I hope you can take it to heart.

Love for God always probes one’s own heart and searches it and questions and finds ways in which the soul is lacking. When this lack is acknowledged then God can enter and fill up what is lacking. I do not love God as He should be loved. This I know. Presuming on His love doesn’t help me love Him one little bit better.

And here is a newsflash Clem, just because a Catholic says something doesn’t mean it is Catholic teaching. You claim that the “unconditional love of God” is Catholic teaching. It isn’t.

You say that I agree with Protestants as if that in and of itself is grounds to dismiss all I say, but what I agree with them about is that the notion of an “unconditional love of God” for us that saves us is THEIRS! And they agree with me that it comes from them not us, the Catholics. If a Protestant says it is their teaching, why do you insist it is ours? Why can’t you see the addition of the word “unconditional” to the statements describing the love of God as a corruption of the message of God’s love for Israel? Everyone in Israel KNEW there were conditions that had to be met in order for God not to punish them and for them to continue to find favor with God. It is kindergarten stuff in the spiritual realm. I guess I could answer my question for myself with “they have eyes but cannot see, they have ears but cannot hear…”

Oh well. I tried. You don’t have to agree with me at all Clem. But I hope you do see I have a point. Thanks for trying.

Glenda