For Goodness Sake

[Quietfire]

[quote]first off, phatcatholic, I'll get to your post tomorrow...but WHO YOU CALLIN DAUGHTER?!?![/quote]


I had to do a double take too!

Phatcatholic was referring to Daughter of Mary. he,he.

[Quietfire]

Ok,Ok my turn.

I have strongly suggested in the past few weeks for everyone to get a copy of Theology for Beginners by F. Sheed.
Sometimes, I get a head-cake reading the catechism.
I may be calling Ironmonk for assistance on that topic.

All spiritual beings, angels and men alike, are created by God with the Beatific Vision as their destiny-a direct vision of himself.

Once God is seen as he is, it is impossible for the soul to see the choice of self against God as anything but repulsive, and in the profoundest sense meaningless.

Once in contact the self knows beatitude, total well-being, and no element in the self could even conceive of wishing to lose it. But until then, the will, even supernaturally alive, may still choose self.

So it was with the angels. God created them with their natural life, pure spirits knowing and loving, and with supernatural life. And some of them chose self, self against God. We know that one was their leader; him we call the devil, the rest demons; he is the named one- Lucifer(although he is never called so in Scripture), Satan which means Enemy, Apollyon which means Exterminator, Beelzebub which means the Lord of the Flies, or Beelzebul, Lord of Filth. The rest are an evil, anonymous multitude.

The detail of their sin we do not know. In some form it was, like all sin, a refusal of love, a turning of the will from God, who is supreme goodness, towards self. Theologians are almost at one in thinking it was the sin of pride; all sons involve following one's own desire in place of God's will, but pride goes all the way, putting oneself in God's place, making oneself the conter of the universe. It is total folly of course, and the angels knew it. But the awareness of folly does not keep us from sinning and did not keep them. The world well lost for love-that can be the cry of self-love too.

One of the secondary thoeological excitments of the next life may be learning the detail of the angels' sin.

The angels who stayed firm in the love of God were admitted to the Beatific Vision. The rest got what they asked for-separation from God. He still maintained them in existence out of their original nothingness, but that was all. Note that their choice was final. Men are given another chance, and another, and another. Not so angels. We have no experience, and never shall have it, of being pure spirits, spirits not meant for union with a body as our souls are; but philosophers who have gone deep into the concept see reasons why an angel's decision can only be final, and a second chance therefore pointless.

The angels who sinned were separated from God. They must have known that this would mean suffering. God had made them, as he has made us, for union with himself. Their nature, like ours, is a great mass of needs, needs which only God can meet. All spiritual beings need God, as (and immeasureably more than) the body needs food and drink and air. Deprived of these the body knows torment, and at last dies. Deprived of God a spirit knows torment, and cannot die. It is deprived of God by its own will to reject God, but this will not change; its self-love is too monsterous. The lost will not have God, who alone can meet their needs, but who by the greatness of his glory shows their own self for the poor thing it is. Union with him would be self-love's crucifixion, and self-love has become their all.

There is more to be said of Hell than that, but that is the essence of it. One single detail must be added. Hell is not simply a place of self-inflicted torment; it is a place of hate. Love, like all good things, has its source in God. Cut off from its source, it withers and dies. It is as though the moon, in love with its own light, rejected the sun. Hell is all hate;hate of God, hate of one another, hate of all the creatures of God, above all of those creatures who are made in the hated image- one remembers the demons who preferred swine's bellies to a return to hell(Lk 8-32).

Lumber, would you like me to continue? with the 'fall of Adam'. It might make more sense to what I typed above and explain in more detail to your question.


Peace.

Edited June 16, 2004 by Quietfire

[the lumberjack]

good post quietfire...but I really don't see what that has to do with the question of man's inherent goodness or severe lack thereof.

man was made to be good.

man chose not to accept it.

God gives man another chance to be good thru Christ...

but does that mean that man is good without God?

-------

and Apotheoun,

I think its that kind of thinking that makes secular people think that "good" people go to heaven...

"I believe in God, and I'm a good person...why wouldn't I go to heaven?"

[Guest JeffCR07]

Lumberjack, if you don't mind, I'd like to address your response to my post (I'm not sure if you're still looking at this thread or not)

But either way, here it goes:

[quote]we were created to be good and live in communion with God, no one denies that.

Adam's fall stained us and took that goodness away...therefore, because there is a tendency to do evil, man is not inherently good...without God, no one is good.

I see what you're saying Jeff, but Adam's introduction of sin is what makes man not inherently good...we may do good things...but that does not make us good.

as kilroy stated before, we're doing things to look out for number 1...so without God (and even sometimes with, because of our flesh that tries to rise up) our "good" deeds are in vain, because we seek only our own gain.

God bless.[/quote]


Ok, my response: (keeping in mind post-baptism, or in lumberjacks argument, post born-again, man)

I think the thing that many people latch on to too easily in this debate (I'm making a broad statement, this isnt directed at you Lumberjack) is that humans are either one, or the other, but thats not exactly right. We were made to be 100% in communion with God, desiring him and being with him. Adam's fall did not turn us into Devils, we did not become the opposite of what we were made for. Thus, human nature is confused, it is warped. I really like analogies, so I'll go ahead and use one.

God is on top of a hill, and a man is at the foot of the hill. The man is trying desperately to reach God, but it has just rained and the mud is too slippery. Try as he might, he cannot get to the top to be with God, because he is always sliding and falling back down. God, however, can lean over, grab the man's hand, and pull him up.

Now, in the analogy, humans are [i]not[/i] just the man. We are the man and the hill combined. By our nature, we are trying to reach God - which is a good end - but at the same time, and also by our nature (concupiscence from my last post) we cannot, we constantly slide and fall away from God.

In this way, when I say that men are inherently good (we were made for, and still strive towards, God) but have a tendency to sin (we constantly slip and fall
) I am not being hypocritical.

The only other comment I have is to be careful when you said
[quote]so without God (and even sometimes with, because of our flesh that tries to rise up) our "good" deeds are in vain[/quote] particularly the part about our "flesh". The material world, including our flesh and bones, as well as the rest of the earth, is good. God made it, and, at the end of time, we get our bodies back, in a glorified form. Flesh itself is not the problem. If, however, you are talking about concupiscence (our tendency to sin) when you say "flesh" (as some people use the term in scripture) then you're right, it does rise up against you

[Quietfire]

Dude, thats why I asked if ya wanted me to go on. I had to 'set the stage'. (so to speak)

sometimes these long posts wear me out,(and wear out those who read them, he he) thats why I asked if ya wanted me to continue.

Otay?

Peace.

[the lumberjack]

okay Jeff, I agree that we were made for good...no...for God...we were made to be for God's good, which all in all, IS good.

does that make us good?

a bottle that was made for catsup can easily hold a molitov (sp?) cocktail... it was made for one thing, yet is used for another.

and yeah, you were right about my use of the term flesh...

I do see what you're saying...really. but natural man, especially those that are blatantly against God, are anything BUT good.

either we are for Christ (and God), or we are against Him, right?

so what would someone without Christ be?

against Him, right?

and isn't that pretty evil?

I'm not saying that man is pure evil...but if we were good, I don't think Christ would have come to die for us...

I dunno...I'm just asking questions.

--------

and Quietfire...I was asking you (albeit indirectly) to go on and elaborate on your "setting the stage" post...


God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]okay Jeff, I agree that we were made for good...no...for God...we were made to be for God's good, which all in all, IS good.

does that make us good?

a bottle that was made for catsup can easily hold a molitov (sp?) cocktail... it was made for one thing, yet is used for another.

and yeah, you were right about my use of the term flesh...

I do see what you're saying...really. but natural man, especially those that are blatantly against God, are anything BUT good.

either we are for Christ (and God), or we are against Him, right?

so what would someone without Christ be?

against Him, right?

and isn't that pretty evil?

I'm not saying that man is pure evil...but if we were good, I don't think Christ would have come to die for us...

I dunno...I'm just asking questions.[/quote]

They are great questions. Let me try to answer them one by one:

[quote]a bottle that was made for catsup can easily hold a molitov (sp?) cocktail... it was made for one thing, yet is used for another.[/quote]

This doesn't quite encapsulate the issue, though it is a very logical argument. The difference is try to imagine that the catsup bottle [i]tries[/i] to hold catsup. Yes, people do bad things, but we, by our nature, [i]try[/i] to be with God. We are predisposed to strive towards God, and by original sin, we are predisposed to fail in that striving.

[quote]either we are for Christ (and God), or we are against Him, right?

so what would someone without Christ be?

against Him, right?

and isn't that pretty evil?[/quote]

I am "for" Truth. I want people to tell the truth, and I try to tell the truth. But every once in a while, I exaggerate a story or tell a lie. Just because I fail, does this mean I am "against" the Truth?

In the same way, we yearn for God because we are human. We fail because we are human. The yearning is Good, the failing is Bad. Christ came [i]for[/i] the sinners. We cannot be "against" him simply because we sin.

[quote]I'm not saying that man is pure evil...but if we were good, I don't think Christ would have come to die for us...[/quote]

You are very, very right here. We are not "Good" "and thats the end of it." Our nature is both good and bad, one that seeks him AND pushes him away. This is precisely why Christ HAD to die. To save us from our ambiguity. We can never reach God if we are constantly taking one step forward and one step backward. Christ is our giant leap into the arms of the Father, and it is only in that Final Salvation that our natures will be ordered again. Then we will be as we were meant to be: no more confusion, no more "inherently good with a tendency to sin," just Good. Just God. Without Christ, we can't partake in the divine nature as we were meant to.

hope this helps!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[phatcatholic]

lumberjack,

did u read my long post to you? if so, i'm not sure why you are still insisting that man is inherently evil. when you get a chance, read my post and respond to the specific claims that i make in it. that will help me understand why u still believe the way you do.

thanks,
phatcatholic

Edited June 16, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Jake Huether]

[quote]living saint

If the Catholic Church is THE church founded by Christ, I'm bloody Mary Poppins.[/quote]


I just wanted to say hi to Mary Poppins.


LOL!

[Quietfire]

the Fall of Man..

For the human race's beginning we go to Genesis 2 and 3-written in metaphor as the story of Everyman, Everywoman, Everysin, but wholly true in all that matters to us. If we read those two chapters and not meet ourselves in them, we need a course in remedial reading. St. Paul, Corinthians 15:21-22, and Roman 5:12-20, would be part of the course. I summerize the Church's meditation on St. Paul's mediation on the Fall.

God created man and woman with the natural life of soul and body, and with sanctifying grace, God dwelling in his soul and pouring supernatural life into it. In addition he gave man preternatural gifts, not supernatural but rather perfections of the natural-guarding it against destruction or damage. Notable among these wer immunity from suffering and death, and integrity. This last is perhaps the one we look back to with the greatest longing, for it means that man's nature was wholly at peace; the body was subject to the soul, the lower powers of the soul to the higher, the natural habits wholly harmonious with the supernatural, the whole man united with God.

The point of union, for the first man as for all spiritual beings, was in the will, the faculty which loves, which decides. And he willed to break the union. He sinned, disobeying a command of God. The detail of the sin we dont know-Genesis describes it as the eating of forbidden fruit, but we are not bound to see this as literal. Two things about it we do know.

Man fell by the tempting of Satan; it was the first engagement in a war which has gone on ever since and which will not end until the world ends.

And what Satan tempted our first parents with was the promise that, if they disobeyed, they should be like gods. Satan must have felt the full irony of it. Pride had wrecked him, pride should wreck them.

For Adam, the individual man, the results can be simply stated and simply comprehended. He had broken the union with God, and the life ceased to flow. He lost sanctifying grace; supernaturally he was dead.

He lost the preternatural gifts too. He could now suffer, he had come under the natural law of death; worst of all he had lost integrity, the subordination of lower powers to higher, in the rejection of his own subordination to God. From now on every element in him would be making for its own immediate and separate gratificaton; the civil war with man had begun.

For Adam, the man, the future was stateable equally simply. He could repent, turning to God again; God would remake the contact and sanctifying grace would be in him once more. But the man it was in was a very different man. The preternatural gifts were not restored, so that integrity was not there. It was to a man with his powers warring among themselves and tugging away from God as oftern as not, that grace was given back. To figure his condition, we have but to look to ourselves.

But Adam was not only a man. He was the man. He was the representative man. For the angels the testing had been individual; each angel who fell did so by his own decision. But the human race was tested and fell in one man, the representative man. In his catastrophe every man till the end of time was involved. There has been much mockery in this, of the "Ever-ate-the-apple-we-get-the-stomach-ache" variety. But, with no disposition to mock, we can still find something baffling in it.
We sometimes slip into thinking that if he had not sinned he would have kept grace and we could have inherited it from him. But grace is in the soul, and we do not inherit our souls; each soul is a new creation. Adam's obedience was the [i]condition[/i] on which we should all have come into existence with grace as well as nature. He disobeyed, the condition was not kept, we are born without sanctifying grace.

That is what is meant by being born with original sin, which is not to be thought of as a stain on the soul, but as the absense of that grace without which we cannot reach the goal for which God destined man. We may be given grace later, but we enter life without it, with nature only.

And our nature too is not as Adam's was before he failed the condition, but as it was after. The gift of integrity, guaranteeing the harmony of man's natural powers, has gone. Each of our powers seeks its own outlet, each of our needs its own immediate gratification; we have not the subordination of all our striving; every one of us is a civil war.



Now, I will stop here. but I hope you see where it's going.

You stated to me...

[quote]man was made to be good.

man chose not to accept it.

God gives man another chance to be good thru Christ...

but does that mean that man is good without God?[/quote]

Your first point-yes. Because God is good, and 'bad' is not in God's nature. God cannot create anything 'bad'. (evil)
Your second point- "it" what? Goodness. The post above answers that. What we chose not to accept was sanctifying grace and lost integrity and are supernaturally dead. We are still 'good' in the sense that God cannot create anything that is evil.

God gives us another chance, (and another, and another) but we are [i]not the same as the original man and woman.[/i] Our original parents know what they have lost, we can only long for what we were never born with.

Yes, he sent his Son to redeem us thereby teaching us through the Apostles how to achieve atonement (at-one-ment) with God because the sin of the race stood,and will remain forever an obstacle between man and our true destiny, but [i]not simply between individuals and himself but between our race and himself.[/i] God did continue to give sanctifying grace to those who loved him, a gift carrying with it the power to live in heaven (and meaningless if heaven were never to be open to us.)

Keep in mind his [i]first[/i] statement of redemption was not addressed to us but to Satan-the seed of the woman should crush his head.

Now, your last point. How is it possible, by which God created you, willed you into existence, holds you in existence through his will, that a man can be good without God? God is all goodness, and creates nothing that is not good. He created your soul. How can one not exist without God, who is all goodness. So my answer to that would be no. One cannot be good without God. So one who is evil, is against God.


Peace

[Quietfire]

think about this. Once we die, we are judged and all that, (we all know how it works right?) we receive those gifts back from God and are now able to see him face to face (Beatific Vision)

Can you now understand why we will be higher than the angels. They can never experience what we go through here in this life, so we will be so much for the better in reaching heaven. This is what Jesus talked about. We are all destined for so much more, and you start to see how we rate some things in this life as important and such. To achieve that though (the Beatific Vision) literally makes everything here pale in comparison, dare I say...not existant in importance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Jun 16 2004, 12:56 PM']Apotheoun,

I think its that kind of thinking that makes secular people think that "good" people go to heaven...

"I believe in God, and I'm a good person...why wouldn't I go to heaven?"[/quote]
The fact that a man may misunderstand the nature of the truth is regrettable, but I will not succumb to error in order to try and correct his misconceptions; instead, I will continue to explain the truth, and try in various ways to convey the full nature of that truth to him.

Any man who thinks that he can by his own natural capacities, no matter how good those capacities are in themselves, achieve eternal salvation is deluding himself. It is by grace alone, which elevates human nature to a state of existence that exceeds its natural capacities, that man receives the unmerited gift of eternal life. This truth does not require that I tell a person that his nature is inherently evil or that his nature, i.e., his created existence, is somehow wholly corrupted; because once again, if I say that, I fall into two errors, the errors I mention previously but which you chose to ignore. But here are those two points yet again:

[quote][It is wrong to say that man is not inherently good in his created existence or being;] (1) because God is the Creator of man's being, not simply in a general sense, but in the case of each and every single existing human being, and so to say that man is naturally or inherently evil, is to make God the Creator of evil, and this is false; and (2) if man is inherently evil, if he is evil by his very nature and existence, then it follows that he would not be responsible for his sins, because God as his Creator made him inherently evil, and so God would be responsible for each and every sin committed by a man, and this is false.[/quote]

Being naturally good will not bring a man to salvation, but one cannot say that man is inherently evil or that his created nature, created directly by God, is lacking in goodness in any ontological sense. Clearly, the fall of Adam has wounded man's nature, but this is because the preternatural gift of [i]integrity[/i] given to Adam was removed after the fall, and man as a consequence became subject to concupiscence, i.e., to the disordered inclinations of his passions. These disordered inclinations of the will are why man tends to sin, but these disordered inclinations are not, properly speaking, existing things in man, but are a relative absence of the good in his will due to the loss of gift of [i]integrity[/i], which, as I indicated before, had been superadded to his nature at the time of Adam's creation. The Church holds as a matter of faith, that man can perform naturally good actions without grace, but that these actions, which are good in their object, cannot bring him to salvation, precisely because they are performed without grace. But the naturally good actions in question, things like, helping someone in distress, etc., are not in their object evil, they are truly good, but they will not lead to salvation because they are not done with the aid of God's grace. Thus, they cannot elevate man beyond his nature because they are purely natural acts, good in themselves, but not meritorious. Pope Clement XI condemned the Jansenist errors on the necessity of grace for morally good acts in the Dogmatic Constitution [u]Unigenitus[/u] issued on September 8, 1713, and later reconfirmed that same teaching in a papal bull entitled [u]Pastoralis Officii[/u] dated August 28, 1718. The Jansenists, like some of the Reformers, held that everything that fallen man did was by definition evil, but Church declared against this because she has always held that although man's nature is wounded by sin, because of the loss of the preternatural gifts which were meant to perfect it, it is not depraved or inherently evil, because man's nature is created directly by God, and so if it were inherently evil, it follows that God as its Creator would be inherently evil, and this is a totally repugnant idea. I hope that this helps to clarify matters for you.

God bless,
Todd

Edited June 16, 2004 by Apotheoun

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 16 2004, 05:23 PM']

I just wanted to say hi to Mary Poppins.


LOL! [/quote]
:rotfl:

[theculturewarrior]

LJ...

Do you think Gandhi was evil? He lived a chaste life, decried violence, showed compassion to people of different cultures. He freed his nation from (Christian) tyranny, without starting a bloody revolution.

All these things strike me as good. And yet, he is human. He was stained with Original Sin. He never accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, to the best of my knowledge.

I'm not asking whether you think he is in heaven or not. I'm asking whether you think he was incapable of good. ?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Gandhi is a good example. Also, look at Abraham. He was considered Righteous in the eyes of the Lord, but he also did not know Christ. To be good is just to will that which the Lord wills. Jesus is the one who wins for us the Eternal Good, that is, communion with Him in Heaven, life in the New Jerusalem, glorified bodies, pure wills. These things cannot be obtained simply by "being good"