Why was Jesus' death necessary?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Why were Jesus' sufferings and death necessary for our salvation?

I agree with the traditional view that sin hold human beings in bondage, those bond must be broken, and that is precisely what happens through he Cross. But my interpretation of the Cross is psycological. Also the bondage of sin is psycological. "Whoever commits sin is the slave of sin"; a slave is not free to choose. Actually most men do not agree with this, because they think they are free to choose. This is because they do not know the unconscious mechanisms which determines their conscious will. The bondage of sin is hidden in our unconscious. A sinner is just like a toxicomaniac who claims that he can stop when he wants, which is absolutely false. In other words a sinner is a slave of his own unconscious, that is he is a slave of himself. In the Bible the modern concept of "unconscious" is usually expressed with the word "heart". I think in fact that the "heart" represents the the hidden core of our psiche and of ourselves. The heart indicates the part of ourselves where our feelings originate. We do not know exactly why we love some persons in a special way, because the real origin of our feelings is in our unconscious. And this is true also for our evil and sinful desires. The only possibility for us to be freed from sin and to be saved is that totally renounce to ourselves (our unconscious) and accept the "new heart" God offers us. We must deny ourselves and renounce to our free-will in order to receive this new birth of the Spirit, as it is written in Ezekiel:

36 : 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 36 : 26 I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. 36 : 27 I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.

When God put His Spirit within us, it is God Who makes us live by His statues. In fact, if we have a free-will, we can use it in order to chose that we do not want it, because we understand that we are not able to make the right choices and to live a holy life. If we no longer trust ourselves while we blindly trust God, we no longer want our free-will. If we want to keep our free-will, there will be always the possibility for us to sin again ; but if we renounce to it and commit entirely ourselves to God, our life will be a partecipation to the holy life of God. Christ is the Life (John 11 :25, 14 :6) ; if we accept Christ in our heart, we accept to live His life (or better said, we accept to be lived by Him) and renounce to live our own life. When Paul says that it is Christ Who lives in him, he implies that he has lost his freewill, because if it is Christ Who lives in him (Ga 2 :20), it is also Christ Who makes choices in him. In fact in Romans 6 :18-22 he writes that when we are set free from sin, we become the slaves of God. Observe that a slave is not free; the concept of slavery is the exact opposite of the concept of freedom. Those who have become slaves of God, have used their free-will in order to chose to become slave of obedience. Let me give you a simple examle ; if you are not an artist, you cannot create music ; you can however live the emotions created by the artist by listening to his music. No man can "create" a holy life by himself, but if we totally renounce to ourselves, through the Holy Spirit we can partecipate to the holy life of Christ.

God will not give us this "new heart" if we do not willingly renounce to our own heart and willingly commit entirely ourselves to Him. The problem is : how can we commit entirely ourselves to God if in our hearts we remain suspicious towards Him. The doubt represents the most difficult obstacle between us and salvation. The doubt is in fact a manifestation of distrust and of lack of faith. Up to when the doubt ( and with it, the distrust and the lack of faith) dwells in us ( consciously or unconsciously) we will never be able to fully commit ourselves to God, and then we cannot be saved. Peter could walk on the waters up to when he began to doubt. It was then his lack of faith to make him sink. This episode is higly emblematic. The strength of sin is our distrust and lack of faith. Since every man has sinned, every man (consciously or unconsciously) have doubted God's word and desidered to put God to the test; every man has allowed the doubt to strike root in himself. We may be so much frightened by this thought that we have hidden it in our unconscious, as we always do with thoughts and feelings we do not want to know. I have discovered, by seeking inside myself, that only the Christ' sufferings and death are stronger than any doubt, and that my faith is based on the Cross. Only the Cross can overcome the hardness of our heart and create the true faith in us. Only the Cross can break the wall of distrust which have built between us and God. This is the reason why I know that I am personally responsible of Jesus' sufferings. I think that this is common to all believers, even if most of them are not aware of it. I think that all men are personally responsible of Christ' sufferings and death because all men needed the proof of God's love in order to blindly trust God and to commit themselves to Him. Jesus suffered and died in order to prove unequivocally God's love for us and to dissipate our doubt, our distrust and our lack of faith. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends". There is nothing else we can ask to God as a proof of His love. Jesus'death on the cross has a so deep psycological impact that it produces a radical change in our innermost selves; even if we doubted His word, now we can no more doubt because we have the proof of His faithfulness. In other words, God chose to destroy our distrust by "convincing" us about His love, that is by giving us the proof of His love (which every man conscously or unconsciously has asked to Him). As I said that we must renounce to our freewill, because we must understand that we are not able to make good choices and that we need to commit entirely ourselves to God. However this renounce must be a free-choice of ours; this is a part of the great plan of God for us.

Thank you for every comment,

Marco Biagini



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 16, 2000

Answers

YES,YES,YES,YES,YES, Marco,

I agree whole heartedly.Jesus is the only way!

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 16, 2000.


Yes, dear Marco. In all the world and eternity there has not been another hour so wonderful as the hour Our Saviour gave up His life. One might ask, ''Wonderful?'' That's a crazy way to describe this tragedy. For us, perhaps, but to God the Almighty Father, His entire creation is not impressive. No natural event can be worthy of His notice, if He did not first love it.

Except this one. To hear His Divine Son, in agony say the words, ''Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.'' And then to expire, innocent and perfect in every way! Only a heart of stone is unmoved by Our Lord's sacrifice; and to understand it at all is to see it as our own salvation. There was nothing senseless or vague about it. He chose to do it to repair for our sins. To redeem the world! How can any man (or woman) not love Jesus, or be indifferent to the cross? I recall the words also of the centurion, at the moment of Jesus' death. In that instant, with the earth shaking and the sky turned dark, he looked up at the man on the cross and declared, ''Truly, this was the Son Of God!'' It is too wonderful, and we can't even comprehend how glorious it must have appeared to Our Almighty Father in heaven, as He saw His Divine Son offering Him everything-- His life!

-- eugene c. Chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 19, 2000.


Yes Jesus had to die on the cross to fulfill the prophecies of old. Everything is kind of like a jigsaw puzzle that fits together piece by piece--not all at once either. After each prophecy was fulfilled, it took us one step closer to the death of Jesus on earth and our gift of being able to attain heaven. And just for thought, someone had to betray Jesus, which we know now was Judas. So what was Judas-- was that his choice, destiny or what. Because if you think about it, without his betrayal, Jesus wouldn't have been tried and convicted and where would the church and us be today?

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@camada.com), November 19, 2000.

Dear friend, We are not to surmise from Judas' betrayal any false notions. I know that some Protestants apply it falsely as if Jesus favored abortion. Because He stated that for the one who would betray Him, better would it be had he ''never been born.''

Which is a specious argument. Christ never advocated a single thing that could go counter to the commandments of God His Father. The betrayal of Judas is a mystery we can't know an answer to. It is part of ''the mystery of iniquity'', known in theology as ''Why does God, who is perfection and All-just, permit evil?'' No one has the answer but He.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 19, 2000.


Ellen, I strongly disagree with your statement that "Jesus had to die to fullfill the Old Testament prophecies" In fact a prophecy is not the cause of an event, it simply foretells that an event will occur. Even if the prophecy were not given, that event would have happenened the same.

You cannot understand why Jesus had to die on the basis of the OT sacrifical system. Let me explain first some preliminary concepts.

Mr 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and tested him, asking, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? 10:3 And he answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? 10:4 And they said, Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. 10:5 Jesus answered and said to them, Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 10:7 For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; 10:8 And the two shall be one flesh: so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate. 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again about the matter. 10:11 And he said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery. start with a preliminary consideration :

In the Bible divorce is allowed, but Jesus explains that the institution of divorce is the consequence of the hardness of Old Testament people’s heart, and it is not the expression of the will of God. The Mosaic Law represents a sort of compromise between the God and men ; in other words God did not give people the complete moral law and allowed some primitive behaviors in view of the mature time when Christ would have come to manifest to humanity the true nature of God and the true moral law.

The Old Testament sacrifices were simply the expression of the primitiveness of Old Testament people and of the hardness of their heart. God never wanted these sacrifices, but He simply allowed them. What He desired was mercy and nor sacrifice :

Mt 9:13 But go and learn what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

Jesus here says clearly that God does not want sacrifice, but mercy. This means that the sacrifical system was not instituted in order to satisfy God's will. Every primitive people, including pagans, had a sacrifical system. The sacrifical system is the expression of the brutality and primitiveness of those people, and not of the will of God. God simply tolerate that because of its prophetic meaning.

When Jesus was dying He asked "Why?"

I am trying to find the answer to this question, the most important question in all the history.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 20, 2000.



This is not our choice to make, Marco. We may make conjecture and contemplate the mysteries, but it's God that can ''neither deceive nor be deceived.'' All truth is from Him alone. He is the One that has revealed, ''Without blood there is no remission of sin,'' and Christ says with no ambiguity, ''This is my blood, the blood of the New and everlasting testament-- it shall be shed for you.'' A sacrifice is clearly offered up and accepted by the Eternal Father. It is more than clear Christ was offering Himself as a sacrifice for sin, and His own word cannot be disputed.

The Old Testament prophecies did not have to be fulfilled as such, but after the fact it's known; many indeed were.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2000.


>>>>This is not our choice to make, Marco. We may make conjecture and contemplate the mysteries, but it's God that can ''neither deceive nor be deceived.'' All truth is from Him alone. <<<

Eugene, I certainly agree that all truth comes from Him alone, but this does not imply that we cannot try to understand His misteries. In fact God will give knowledge and wisdom to those who ask for it with faith.

>>>He is the One that has revealed, ''Without blood there is no remission of sin,'' <<<

Could you please give the exact quotation of this verse?

>>>and Christ says with no ambiguity, ''This is my blood, the blood of the New and everlasting testament-- it shall be shed for you.''<<<

There is no doubt that the blood of Christ has been shed for us, but the question is: why is our salvation based on Christ's blood?

>>> A sacrifice is clearly offered up and accepted by the Eternal Father.<<<

The Father accepted Christ's sacrifice because He knew that this sacrifice was necessary for our salvation. The question is: why was it necessary?

>>> It is more than clear Christ was offering Himself as a sacrifice for sin, and His own word cannot be disputed.<<<

I strongly disagree; this is only your interpretation: Christ sacrifice was not to satisfy God's Justice or to give us simply the forgiveness of our sins. God can forgive our sins also without the Cross. The true aim of the Cross was to break the slavery of sin, so that we can become new persons in Christ and receive His righteuosness.

Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, as an offering for sin; condemning sin in the flesh: 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk in the ways of the flesh, but in the ways of the Spirit.

Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary so "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us". This is also stated in

Hebrews 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

In other words, the Cross represents the necessary step for our santification. In fact when the NT says that Christ takes away our sins, it does not mean that our sins are simply forgiven, but they our sinfull nature is destroyed. The santification process is completed when our sinfull nature has been completely destroyed, so that we can be in fellowship with God and live a holy life without sinning. The fact that the OT sacrifical system was useless is stated clearly in Hebrew 10 :11

"Every priest stands daily ministering and offering, time and again, the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins."

This verse says clearly that the OT sacrifical system was useless and so it was only due to the primitiveness of OT people, and it was not to satisfy God’s Justice.

>>>The Old Testament prophecies did not have to be fulfilled as such, but after the fact it's known; many indeed were. <<<

Your last statement has nothing to do with the present topic. As I have said, a prophecy is never the cause of an event, and then it cannot be used to explain why an event has to happen.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 20, 2000.


From the words of the apostle St. Paul, in the 9th Chapter of Hebrews, almost all the verses speak of the Old Law's insistence on blood as a ratification of the covenant God has made with His people. In verse 22, the quotation I used appears, is extrapolated by St. Paul to make Christ's own blood sacrifice the ratification of the New Covenant.

We know by faith that Christ's own, real blood becomes sacramental for believers. In fact, blood always has great mystical significance even from Genesis on to the final book of the Holy Bible. In Genesis God says to Cain, ''The voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the ground.'' and references in Apocalype to the blood of the Lamb, the saved which washed and whitened their robes in the blood of the Lamb. The very glorious image of Jesus, the King of Kings followed by the armies of heaven. He is mounted on a whi te horse, wearing a ''garment sprinkled with blood.'' (Apoc. 19) I do not believe these are mere obsessions with blood. I think God knows something about blood which we do not. You may correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not claiming to know, I only have an intuition.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2000.


Guys,

Here is more of God's word for you to try to use to support your perspectives. I'm having a hard time grasping the fine points of your disagreements, so I'll just offer one train of thought.

God is the infinite creator. Man is a finite creature. Any sin, even our slightest sin, is worthy of punishment by our death, even our annihilation. Being finite, we are incapable of making amends for even the slightest sin against an infinte, all-good God. Nothing we ourselves can do or say, and nothing we can sacrifice (animal or inanimate object) can make amends. When the one offended is an infinite and perfect person, only an infinite and perfect person can make amends to him. Though not absolutely necessary, it apparently seemed fitting to God -- and the way he chose to accomplish it -- that a man born of finite woman be the one to make amends to him. This could only happen if an infinite, perfect, sinless person (God's son) were to take flesh in what some call the "substitutionary atonement."

Colossians 1:19-20: For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

1 Peter 1:18-19: You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

Romans 3:22-25: For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Romans 5:8-9: But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Ephesians 1:7: 7: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.

1 John 1:7: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Matthew 26:28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 10:12-22: But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God ... Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 20, 2000.


We are making this much more complicated than it really is. Let's look at what we all agree on:

1) We all have sinned and fall short of Gods glorious ideal. 2) The wages of sin is death(hell), but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 3)John 3:3 Jesus said," With all the earnestness I posess I tell you this: unless you are Born Again(die to the old you,the sinful you), you will never enter the kingdom of God". 4)John 14:6 Jesus said, "I am the way ,yes, and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by means of me. 5)Romans 10:9-11 "For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord, and believe in your own heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. If you are prepared to make a total commitment of all you are and have to the total rule of the Lord Jesus Christ: Ask Jesus to be the Lord of your life. "Lord Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner. Please forgive me, I never want to sin again.I need you to take over my life. Empty me of selfishness and give me a new heart like yours, a heart that loves others as much as self . When you surrender and completely trust Him in this way, God will put His Holy Spirit in you and you will be born into Gods family. He now becomes your loving Lord and can make any changes in your life He wants - anywhere, anytime.

Attend church, fellowship with other believers, read Gods Word, The Holy Bible. Love one another.(" Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation..." 1Peter 2:2.

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 20, 2000.



Hi Ellen,

I want to make a quick comment about Judas. You asked if he chose to betray Jesus. Yes, he made that choice. God didn't plan it that way , nor was Judas predestined to do it. Judas was an angry man who wanted Jesus to lead a revolution against Rome.

There is nothing mysterious about it. God knew that Judas would betray Jesus.

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 21, 2000.


Nothing at all foreign to us, Susan. Marco wants to know why it was at all necessary for Jesus to die. In some ways I know that He had power to save us without this supreme sacrifice. It is nevertheless revealed He did it. Let others ask why, It's enough for me to know how it was done. The Son of God became a victim for me. For the lot of us. Did His Almighty Father demand it for our salvation? Our Lord did not say so; but it happened because He submitted to the will of God. We recall His agony in the garden. He was moved to say, '' Not my will, but Your will be done.'' That means it must have been the only way pleasing to God Almighty. And so: It was an innocent and sinless victim. As the offended One is sinless, the offering must be equal to the task, sinless. No one else is worthy. The victim is human, to atone for our humanity; and God to satisfy God Himself. But, must He die? Then we see, in the words of the apostle, ''The wages of sin is death.'' Jesus pays for our sins.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 21, 2000.

>>>God is the infinite creator. Man is a finite creature. Any sin, even our slightest sin, is worthy of punishment by our death, even our annihilation. Being finite, we are incapable of making amends for even the slightest sin against an infinte, all-good God. Nothing we ourselves can do or say, and nothing we can sacrifice (animal or inanimate object) can make amends. When the one offended is an infinite and perfect person, only an infinite and perfect person can make amends to him. Though not absolutely necessary, it apparently seemed fitting to God -- and the way he chose to accomplish it -- that a man born of finite woman be the one to make amends to him. This could only happen if an infinite, perfect, sinless person (God's son) were to take flesh in what some call the "substitutionary atonement." <<<

Slave, I can only say that I see no logic in your reasoning.

Colossians 1:19-20: For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

This verse simply says that through the Cross we have been reconciled to God ; and in fact, the Cross create the true faith in our heart, and the faith is the only vehicle for us to be reconciled to God.

1 Peter 1:18-19: You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

This verse simply says that we were ransomed through the Cross, because our salvation and santification derives from the Cross. This verse daes not explain why our salvation derives from the Cross.

Romans 3:22-25: For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This verse uses a symbolic language and connects the Cross to our faith, which is my thesis : the Cross creates the true faith in us.

Romans 5:8-9: But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Again this verse does not explain why our justification derives from the Cross.

Ephesians 1:7: 7: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.

Again this verse does not explain why our redemption derives from the Cross.

1 John 1:7: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

John says that the Cross cleanses us from our sins ; this implies that the Cross has a direct salvific effect on us, and not that the Cross was to satisfy God’s Justice or appease God.

Matthew 26:28: for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Again this verse does not explain why our redemption derives from the Cross.

Hebrews 10:12-22: But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God ... Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

The author says that the Cross cleanses our heart and our consciences : this is in perfect agreement with my thesis.

In conclusion, The verses you quote simply state that the Cross was to purify us, to santify us, to heal us from our sinfull nature. The Cross has a direct salvific effect on us. In no verse it is said that the Cross was to appease God or to satisfy God's Justice. The point is that the Cross was not to appease God, but to appease our obstinate distrust and incredulity towards God. God never needed the Cross, but we needed to truly believe with all our heart in God. Only the Cross could create the true faith in our sinful heart, and this is the reason why we all are personally responsible of His sufferings and death.



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 21, 2000.


Eugene, I think that the blood (which represents death) has a deep effect on our psiche and has then the power to change us. My point is that the Christ’s sufferings and death have a direct salvific effect on us because they can destroy our obstinate distrust and incredulity and they can create the true faith in us, which is the foundations of our salvation and santification.

I reject any attept to explain the Cross as a means to satisfy God’s Justice or to appease God. In no verse in the Bible it is written that the Cross was to satisfy God’s Justice or to appease God. See also my previous post for a more detatiled explanation of my point of view.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 21, 2000.


Could we take this one step at a time?

What does ROMANS 6:23 say to you?( For the wages of sin is death (hell), but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don't go off in another direction, just answer that one question.

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 21, 2000.



Dear Marco, --See; I am intrigued by your words, and not in the least opposed to your thinking. I only share my particular intuition in the matter. Nor do I expect you to change your mind. I sincerely hope that you are still young enough a man to pursue this for many more years. You may have something important to contribute to the Church. To put my own views into perspective with yours (or try), I suggest an idea which I've entertained all my life.

If God were reaching out to us throughout the history of salvation, and it required more wisdom than we possessed; what good would it be to us? My intellect and your intellect may be at different extremes of the spectrum. There is the infinite Wisdom of God who reveals Himself to his people. Because he wills all men to be saved, a direct appeal is sent to each one, whether sophisticated or unschooled. If your thoughts have merit, they'll live on. The thoughts of many humble souls have been made part of the Catholic tradition, such as Francis of Assisi and Therese of the Child Jesus. Then you have the thinkers such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All are contributors. Everyone does his best.

-- eugene c. Chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2000.


Dear Susan-- In one message you ask, why make this more complicated than it is? and then you quote a verse from Romans 6:

It is not complicated, and no one's making it complicated. We just discuss a variety of things we all sense is the truth. If you wish to go at this from a basic, abstract and bottom-line approach, think: I am the Way and the Truth and the Light. --

You can suppose to yourself that ends the argument, and-- yes. We do believe in Jesus Christ, it ends the argument. Some others let their spirits inspect the fine print. It lifts their spirit. All of it is theology, and subject to the magisterium of the Church, it has a certain value.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2000.


>>>>>Could we take this one step at a time? What does ROMANS 6:23 say to you?( For the wages of sin is death (hell), but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Don't go off in another direction, just answer that one question. <<<<

Well Susan, I do not interpret literally every verse of the bible. My interpretation of the above verse is: The consequences (wages) of sin is death (not only phisical, but also spiritual, which means for me that when we sin we lose the love of God, and so our existence becomes anguish, inner emptiness, despair, unsatisfaction, hate, indifference,etc.; these are the direct consequences of sin, and can be identified wit the spiritual death) God offer us freely to partecipate to His holy life, and this is eternal life; when we are born of the Spirit, we receive a new pure heart from God, we receive Christ's Spirit in us, and it is no longer us who live, but Christ lives in us. In other words, we are lived by Christ. See my first post for a more detailed explanation of this concept.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 22, 2000.


Eugene,

I perfectly agree with your last post. I do not think that salvation requires more wisdom than we have. The point is that this question is for me important and since I have never received satisfactory answers, I have seek the answer by myself. Now I am trying to understand how my answer is considered by other catholics, in particular by catholic theologians. This is the reason why I am going around several forum.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 22, 2000.


SM,

Man, you be shakin' us up, sweets!

I'm seeing some mighty unusual things in your words. Looks like there's one easy problem to deal with and one tough problem.

The easy problem? You told us, "We are making this much more complicated than it really is." And You told us, "Could we take this one step at a time? What does ROMANS 6:23 say to you? For the wages of sin is death (hell), but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Don't go off in another direction, just answer that one question."

SM, there are different kinds of Catholics coming here, with different interests, with different ways of thinking and talking. The majority of visitors here like to talk over religious/theological matters at some depth, using a combination of emotion, the virtue of faith, research, intellectual/logical arguments, and other factors. The minority of visitors here (who are worthy of equal respect -- and who seem to include you) like to chat about stuff in a very simple, superficial [no bad connotation intended] way, involving just emotion and/or faith. (I am often moved by reading posts from both groups of people.)

What I see is that this current thread was started by a person of the first group, and most of the responses have been from a couple of other people of the first group. But you (from the second group) are stepping in and trying to re-shape and re-direct the conversation. In my humble opinion, you are "out of line" here. When you come upon a thread that is of the "intellectual" type, please just let it be and don't interfere. If you think that a group of us are making a topic "much more complicated than it really is," then please just leave us alone to do that, while you concentrate on (or start) simpler threads. We are not going to change to use your method, because we don't feel at home with your personality or approach.

All right, then. That was the easy problem. Remember that I said there is a tough problem too. What is it? You seem to be tossing up some stuff that is contrary to Catholic belief. I'm really troubled about this, SM. Are you really a protestant? If so, whenever you post for the first time on a thread, you need to say something like, "I'm not a Catholic. I am from the Assemblies of God [or Lutheran church or Church of God in Christ, etc.]. I don't agree with you Catholics, because I believe [such-and-such, etc.]" But, SM, I can't tolerate someone pretending to be a Catholic, trying to fool people or passing along faulty theology. I won't accuse you of trying to deceive anyone, but I am sure that you have espoused faulty theology on this thread. Now having said that, I have a duty to give you at least one example of what I mean.

You said, "Let's look at what we all agree on: ... John 3:3 Jesus said," With all the earnestness I possess I tell you this: unless you are Born Again (die to the old you, the sinful you), you will never enter the kingdom of God"."
Sorry, SM, but we don't agree that "born again" [you capitalized it!?] means simply what you said -- "die to the old you, the sinful you." Rather, for a Catholic, "dying to the old self" is just one of several effects (and not the most important effect) of receiving the sacrament of Baptism. You did not even mention sacramental water-Baptism. Perhaps it is optional to you?

You said, "If you are prepared to make a total commitment of all you are and have to the total rule of the Lord Jesus Christ: Ask Jesus to be the Lord of your life. 'Lord Jesus, I confess that I am a sinner. Please forgive me, I never want to sin again. ...' When you surrender and completely trust Him in this way, God will put His Holy Spirit in you and you will be born into God's family. He now becomes your loving Lord and can make any changes in your life He wants - anywhere, anytime."
Sorry, SM, but to a Catholic, this is partly wrong and partly incomplete. This kind of "sinner's prayer" theology, entry into "God's family without Baptism, and a subsequent "permanent assurance of salvation" is non-biblical and non-Catholic.

Enough. I'm not here to persecute you -- but I needed to set you straight. Please assure me that you will do what I ask or that you will stop visiting here. I can't force you to do anything, but if you decide to be unco-operative, I will remind you here -- as often as necessary -- of what you have to do to prove yourself to be an honorable person.

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 22, 2000.


Marco,

Thank you for answering my question so beautifully.You are a gentleman, something that is rare in these parts.

Most people here know that I am a "Born Again Christian"( which means that I asked Jesus to take over my life, died to self and became a new person in Him). And I have been filled with His Holy Spirit. The church I attend is Charismatic Non-denominational.

Some of your counterparts enjoy trying to hurt others. But no one can take the JOY I have from belonging to Jesus. I pray for Gods blessings in your life and that He keep you close to Him.

Slavenolonger(john),

You hold yourself in such high regard. Does it make you feel like a BIG MAN to try to demean another? Do you remember the words of MY Lord Jesus? "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me". Well, I forgive you, and turn you over to God.

ROMANS 8:31-39...If God is on our side, who can be against us? Since He did not spare even His own Son for us but gave Him up for us all, won't He also surely give us everything else? Who dares accuse us whom God has chosen for His own? Will God? No! He is the one who has forgiven us and given us right standing with Himself. Who then will condemn us? Will Christ? No! For He is the one who died for us and came back to life again for us and is sitting at the place of highest honor next to God, pleading for us there in heaven. Who then can ever keep Christs love fron us? When we have trouble or calamity, when we are hunted down or destroyed, is it because He doesn't love us anymore? And if we are hungry, or penniless, or in danger, or threatened with death, has God deserted us? NO, for the scriptures tell us that for His sake we must be ready to face death at every moment of the day- we are like sheep awaiting slaughter; but despite all this,overwhelming victory is ours through Christ who loved us enough to die for us. For I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from His love. Death can't, and life can't. The angels won't, and all the powers of hell itself cannot keep God's love away. Our fears for today, our worries about tomorrow,or where we are- high above the sky, or in the deepest ocean- nothing will ever be able to separate us from the love of God demonstrated by our Lord Jesus Christ when He died for us.

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 23, 2000.


How's it going, SM?

I can't believe what you wrote: "You hold yourself in such high regard. Does it make you feel like a BIG MAN to try to demean another?"

I don't hold myself in high regard! I hold YOU in higher regard than myself. I am my own worst critic. I am so short of where I ought to be, it's ridiculous.

But you do have your own big set of problems. One is obviously the inability to take correction. You must be either a mom (accidentally treating me like a little child, who has no right to correct his mother) or a business executive (who gives orders and correction, but never has to take them). Either way, you gotta step out of those roles and take on some humility, so that you can start learning and straightening up your act. It is totally inaccurate for you to say that I "demean" you. If I explain to you the ways in which you are wrong or have behaved badly, that is not "demeaning" you. That is me doing you a favor, dear. That is called "fraternal correction," something Jesus told us to do, as recorded in Matthew 18.

And, hey, if you have a problem with someone named "john," you go and give him a hard time, but don't be calling me that name.

Let's have a Happy Thanksgiving, OK? OK.

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 23, 2000.


-

If we only recall the ''new'' commandment of Jesus to His followers: ''Love one another as I have loved you,'' the participants in this thread won't let it become a confrontation and after that open animosity. Please give the other side equal opportunity to say what is on their minds. I admit my messages sometimes seem defiant; or condescening. It isn't an attempt to bash another person's belief.

My words are based on strong conviction. There's no middle road to the best argument. When people complain about it, I beg them-- just bring up your BEST argument (not confrontation-- your strong conviction), and remember that: The Jews were adamant aginst Jesus friends and followers. They simply *refused* the Holy Gospel. When the strongest show of conviction these early Christians could possibly have, their MARTYRDOM failed to convince them-- God left them to their blind stubbornness. (Paul explains to us WHY-.) Let's give Susan a chance to return willingly to the Church of her ancestors and of the apostles. She needs courage; the rest is in God's hands. Let's trust Him to convert her once and for all. We actually do love you, Susan. It's called ''Tough Love'' nowadys, not bashing.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 23, 2000.


Hi, I would like to address the original question on this thread. WHY WAS JESUS DEATH NECESSARY? Without the Cross, there is no hope. None of us can live up to Gods Glorious Ideal. But the good news is that: We can have PEACE in our lives now, and Fulfillment forever . There is one who loves you as His child, and wants you to enjoy a relationship with Him. He is the answer to your search for that ultimate relationship. He will fill the hole in your heart, help you overcome your loneliness and your faults, and give you peace here and now, and eternal life with Him in heaven. He is the one Creator of the universe and all it contains, including you. You won't be complete inside until you have a personal relationship with the God who created you.

HOW DO WE KNOW THIS?

God is the Author of the most important Book of all time, The Bible, His " Owner's Manual" for a human life. In His Book, He says: John 3:16-For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life...Romans 8:16, The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The Problem is--Separation

Being at peace with God is not automatic, because by nature you are separated from God. This separation is the "something wrong" that is the root of our selfishness, loneliness, and dark feelings. Through many immoral and amoral acts, thoughts and attitudes, we continue to grieve the ONE who cares for us most. That is ALL of us, no matter how moral or upright we may seem on the surface. If you search your own heart honestly, you already know this is true. This has caused a split between us and the One who made us and loves us. This split is called sin.

How do we know this?

Isaiah 59:2 Your iniquities(wrong doings) have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Psalm 53:2-3 God looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. Everyone has turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

God's Remedy- The Cross

Because He loves us, God cannot stand to allow this split to remain. But because He is perfect, He cannot allow our sin to go unpunished without ceasing to be perfect, because He would then cease to be God.The sin bill must be paid. Religion and good living cannot pay it. So He paid for our evil thoughts and deeds Himself. He came to earth as a human, Jesus Christ. He came to suffer the punishment you and I deserve so we won't have to. Three days later, Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The most important decision you will ever make is what you do with Him...

How do we know this?

1Peter 2:24 He personally carried the load of our sins in His own body when He died on the cross. Isaiah 53:4-6 Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered Him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

You have to CHOOSE This Relationship with God.

You cross the bridge into God's family when you turn to God by asking Christ to be part of your life. There's no such thing as a one-way relationship. God has done His part when His Son died for you, now it's your move. Turning to God means you are also turning FROM something. If you turn to the west, you must turn from the east, since you can't face two directions at the same time. It's the same with Jesus and sin. As you turn to Him, you "repent", which means you realize you cannot give yourself to Jesus while hanging onto the sin He died for. That means turning your back on "my way" choices such as lying, sexual immorality, anger, etc. to begin doing things God's way.

To Choose this relationship, do 4 things:

1 ADMIT your spiritual need. Admit you are a sinner.

2 REPENT and be willing to turn from your sin.

3 BELIEVE that Jesus Christ died for YOU on the cross.

4 RECEIVE Jesus Christ into your heart and life, by choosing this relationship over your current life of sin and separation from Him.

How do we know this? John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of GOD, even those who believe in His name.

Revelation 3: 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in...

Romans 10:13 Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.

How do I ask Him? PRAY- Prayer is simply talking to God, not magic words. You can belong to God from today on if you will tell Him with all your heart. Your prayer should be your own, from your own heart. If you're not in the habit of praying though, you may need an example. Such a prayer may go something like this:

Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgivness. I was made for You, but I've been living for me. I want to begin a relationship with You now. I believe that you died in my place, to pay the penalty for my sin, and rose again for my salvation. I want to turn from my sins. I now invite You to come into my heart and life as my Lord and Savior. In Jesus' name, AMEN.

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 26, 2000.


Dear Susan,
Since nothing you've said here is contrary to Catholic doctrine (does that surprise you?), I might just agree; thanking God for liberating you and ''saving'' you-- nice job, Lord!

It is a fact, you've accepted Jesus as your Savior, it's not for you to accept anyone else's versions of salvation. Or is it?

God calls us as a people, Susan; He wants a COMMUNION, or as Protestants like to call it, a fellowship of believers. When God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, it was to form a people of His own, the Hebrews. They served God as a people. We are also called as one people; Jesus called it His Church, united in the Holy Spirit. He said, as part of His final prayer: ''That they may be ONE, Father, as You and I are ONE.'' Christ is your Savior, and you might well rejoice in this awareness. But you are not supposed to unite yourself to Him without participation in His Church. The Holy Bible is not supposed to take the place of His Church. It is in fact the Good News first given to the world by the Church itself, and was never intended to replace it. Not by the apostles nor by Jesus. You need the Church to become a Christian in every sense of the word. Why else would Christ have founded one?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2000.


>>>>>Because He loves us, God cannot stand to allow this split to remain. But because He is perfect, He cannot allow our sin to go unpunished without ceasing to be perfect, because He would then cease to be God.The sin bill must be paid. <<<<

Susan, I strongly disagree with your post. I think that you have a primitive and completely wrong concept of Justice and of God.

I will start with a preliminary consideration :

Mr 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and tested him, asking, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? 10:3 And he answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? 10:4 And they said, Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. 10:5 Jesus answered and said to them, Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 10:7 For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; 10:8 And the two shall be one flesh: so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate. 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again about the matter. 10:11 And he said to them, Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she commits adultery. start with a preliminary consideration :

In the Bible divorce is allowed, but Jesus explains that the institution of divorce is the consequence of the hardness of Old Testament people’s heart, and it is not the expression of the will of God. The Mosaic Law represents a sort of compromise between the God and men ; in other words God did not give people the complete moral law and allowed some primitive behaviors in view of the mature time when Christ would have come to manifest to humanity the true will of God and the true moral law.

The Old Testament sacrifices were simply the expression of the primitiveness of Old Testament people and of the hardness of their heart. God never wanted these sacrifices, but He simply allowed them. What He desired was mercy and nor sacrifice :

Mt 9:13 But go and learn what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.

Jesus here says clearly that God does not want sacrifice, but mercy. This means that the sacrifical system was not instituted in order to satisfy God's will. Every primitive people, including pagans, had a sacrifical system. The sacrifical system is the expression of the brutality and primitiveness of those people, and not of the will of God. God simply tolerate that because of its prophetic meaning.

I hope that one day you will understand how absurd and primitive your ideas are.

Marco.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 27, 2000.


Dear Marco,
If you feel your convictions are worthier of belief than this woman's, at least do not insult her. She has stated nothing that was absurd or primitive. At basis is her profound faith. When her heart opens to the fullest acceptance of Christ's message, she may be closer to the truth than YOU.

Keep in mind, every article of religious thought or writing submits to the Church's authority beforehand, where the final acceptance must lie. Unless you feel you can reveal something to the Church; which accepts it as truth because you say so? A cautious approach is best. That's the same thing I would advise to Susan Shepherd-Magistro.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 27, 2000.


I did not mean to insult anybody, but I have always tried to speak frankly. I am trully sorry when I hear people saying things like those posted by Susan, because I know that God is love and mercy, and He is neither pleased nor appeased by sufferings, as pagan gods were believed to do. I hope that one day you and Susan will understand how far from God is your concept of Justice.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 27, 2000.

Marco, A concept which is ''far from God'', you say. I know that God is All-just. No injustice is to be found in Him. That isn't a concept, it is a revelation. Not just that, I leave Justice as a rule, to Him. I believe in the Atonement, which the Church has always taught. The One that atones for sin is Christ, His death on the cross atones for our sins. It would almost seem you don't accept such a teaching. But I don't want to say that judged by the few words you've spoken here. It may be I am misunderstanding you.

Let me also add I'm far from convinced (call me unscientific) of the real validity of pschoanalysis, a particular aspect of which is the ''unconscious''. Much of your argument hinges on that aspect. The subconscious, the unconscious, what are these to God? He is above human wisdom. There's Saint Pauls's admonition to the wise: ''Who has known the mind of the Lord, that he might instruct Him?'' But we have the mind of Christ. (1Corinthians 3:16) If Freud had it right, we were all programed to obey a Superego. He had little use for God. We believe rather in the Catholic Church, where the Holy Spirit indwells. He never falls into error.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 27, 2000.


Folks,

Forgive me for not having time to get into this more deeply right now, but I have to speak up before a key point dissolves too far back into past messages.

EC, you are correct. I think I see where MB has gone astray. I don't know if it happened because of his own private, unguided reading of scripture or because he has been educated by modernist Bible "scholars" who tend to call the Old Testament a mountain of myths and who discount anything that does not fit their preconceived notions about God [e.g., calling him all-merciful, but ignoring that he is all-just].

MB revealed his error by stating these words: "'Mt 9:13 But go and learn what this means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.' Jesus here says clearly that God does not want sacrifice, but mercy."

In fact, MB himself has not "go[ne] and learn[ed] what this means." According to a great Catholic Bible scholar who was well versed in the ancient languages and Hebrew thought, the words God spoke would be accurately translated for us people of 2000 as "I desire mercy MORE THAN sacrifice." In other words, he wants and accepts BOTH. The words, "and not sacrifice" are a "hebraicism," a figure of speech, a hyperbole/exaggeration not to be taken literally. Another example of this is Jesus's statement that we must HATE our parents and others. This is a hebraic hyperbole meaning that we must LOVE LESS our parents than we do God. If one does not know about this, one can get in hot water while reading the Bible. The safe thing to do is find out what the Catholic Church teaches about something (usually found in the Catechism) and then check that against our private interpretation of a passage. If our interpretation contradicts Church teaching, we can be sure that we have slipped.

Now how should MB have suspected that Jesus was speaking in hyperbole? He should have been aware of the fact that it was God himself who, through his dialog with Moses, ORDERED the Jewish system of sacrifices. Therefore, I have to reject all these statements of MB as anti-Biblical: "This means that the sacrifical system was not instituted in order to satisfy God's will. Every primitive people, including pagans, had a sacrifical system. The sacrifical system is the expression of the brutality and primitiveness of those people, and not of the will of God."

If anyone thinks that I am mistaken, he should read Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I admit that reading these books is hard going, but the reader will see that sacrifice was indeed the expressed will of God. Even just the first chapter of Leviticus reveals this.

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), November 27, 2000.


Marco,

All I can do is tell you the TRUTH. It's up to you if you want to accept it or not. I have done what Jesus told us to do. To spread the Good News of what Jesus has done for us.

There are two ways to get into the Kingdom Of God:

1) Live a perfect sinless life like Jesus did. OR

2) Accept the free gift of Salvation, that Jesus paid the price for your (and my) sins.

You say God is a loving and just God. You're right. Are you a Dad? A Dad loves his children and treats them justly. If your son disobeys you, do you punish him? Of course.

Marco, I implore you to reread what I wrote, maybe a couple of times.Once you accept that Jesus died for you,and ask Him to be the Lord of your life, the Holy spirit fills you with power from heaven. Then when you read the Holy Bible, Gods Word, will be clearer, as if a veil was covering your eyes, but now it's lifted. Don't believe me, do believe me. It's up to you.

You can't pick and choose what you like in the Bible. Truth is Truth. There's no middle of the road, wishy-washy, lukewarm...........

I will pray for your heart to be open to the truth. What do I gain by telling you this? I am just obeying my Lord and Savior.

I love Him ,I will never be the same again. His Holy Spirit put a Joy in my heart that cannot be measured or described. Jesus- Life giver, Jesus , I'm yours forever.I'm living under the Kiss of Heaven, I'm living in the Embrace of Heaven. It's a glorious place to be . Keep me with you always, Lord. Never, never let me go. Amen, Amen...

-- Susan Shepherd-Magistro (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), November 28, 2000.


Eugene, God is all Just, but you have a completely wrong concept of Justice. In fact the correct concept of Justice is that nobody is punished for something that he had not committed. So, the death of Jesus was not to satisfy God’s Justice, because God is Just and then He does not punish an innocent for the sins committed by others. This is a primitive and false concept of Justice. If the death of Jesus was to satisfy God’s Justice as you say, why the Church speaks about Paschal misteries. If you were right, there would be no mistery.

As far as Freud is concerned, I can say that I think that Freud describes well the human condition under the slavery of sin ; his theories however does not apply to those who are led by the Holy Spirit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Slave, Moses ordered also divorce, but Jesus explained clearly that divorce was given only because of the hardness of their heart. You must understand that the Old Testament does not reveal the true nature of God, because of the hardness of Old Testament People’s heart. God ordered the sacrifical systems only because He knew that because of the hardness of their heart, they could not yet receive the true moral law. In the Old Testament it is also written : "hate your enemy", but Jesus commanded us to love our enemy. How can’t you see the contradictions of your interpretations ? Only Jesus reveals to us the true nature of God. By reading Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy you can never know the true nature of God. I disagree with your interpretation of Mt 9 :13. In fact the fact that this verse is not to be taken literally is an arbitrary opinion, due to the theological beliefs of the scholar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Susan,

salvation is a free gift, but not because Jesus died to satisfy God’s justice. As I have said, Jesus’ death was necessary to create in us the true and perfect faith which is necessary for us to receive the free gift of salvation. In fact until the distrust is rooted in our heart we cannot be saved. My thesis is that we can be saved only if we are born again of the Spirit, which implies the destruction of our heart of stone (sinful nature). However God does not want to destroy our heart if we do not accept to be born again of His Spirit. So, it was not possible for men to be born of the Spirit until the distrust towards God had not been destroyed. God chose to destroy our distrust by "convincing" us about His love, that is by giving us the proof of His love (which every man conscously or unconsciously has asked to Him). This choice is due to fact that when God created men He wanted to create them with a free-will. So if God had chosen to distroy our distrust without convincing us about His love, but simply as an external supernatural action, He would have violated our freewill, and this is in contradiction with His will.

>>>>You say God is a loving and just God. You're right. Are you a Dad? A Dad loves his children and treats them justly. If your son disobeys you, do you punish him? Of course.

Susan, if one of my children disobeys me, I will never punish another of my children who was obedient for the disobedience of the first child. Your example shows clearly the absurdity of your concept of justice ?

>>>Marco, I implore you to reread what I wrote, maybe a couple of times.

No Susan, I implore you to reread what I wrote.

>>>>Once you accept that Jesus died for you,and ask Him to be the Lord of your life, the Holy spirit fills you with power from heaven.

I perfectly know that Jesus died for me, but I perfectly know that His death was not to satisfy God’s Justice. His death was to destroy the distrust rooted in my heart of stone and to create in me the true faith, which is necessary for my salvation. This is the reason why I know that I am personally responsible for His sufferings and death.

>>>>Then when you read the Holy Bible, Gods Word, will be clearer, as if a veil was covering your eyes, but now it's lifted. Don't believe me, do believe me. It's up to you.

No, that veil is covering your eyes, because you still read the Bible as the Old Testament people did.

I hope that one day you all will understand what God’s Justice is.



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 28, 2000.


Dear Marco,
You pick apart everyone else's good admonitions here, and counter-argue even the most empiric of truths, all for the sake of your perfect thesis. You do not react normally, your manner is very elitist. I could flood this page with verses from the Bible, and quote any number of good sources, and it would not cause you much doubt in yourself. There is a word for this. --Hubris.

This was the particular fault Christ pointed out about the Pharisees. It's interesting to me that Saint Paul was originally a Pharisee. He was a man who could have done much harm to the Church; especially since he clearly had genius. God was able to put it to work for Christianity. But only by subjecting him to great shock first. I pray that in God's infinite mercy He finds a way to shock you out of your enormous ego, so that you can employ it to better potential.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 28, 2000.


Dear Eugene,

in my post there is no personal insult or offence towards anybody. I have explained my ideas and I have explained why I think that your ideas are wrong. On the other hand, you have used offensive words, not only towards my ideas, but towards myself (hubris, enormous ego) I think I have been much more correct than you.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 28, 2000.


Dear Marco, --Please don't take the words I use too hard. They stand for human failings. It would have been worse, had I said ''whited sepulchre,'' or ''brood of vipers,'' As Jesus said to the Pharisees.

I don't presume to be anything like Him; but I said what I said by way of admonishing you. You claim others are ignorant; that's an insult. I gave you credit for genius, comparing you to Saint Paul on the way to Damascus! HA!

You had no answer for the Atonement comment I made to you. If and when we should destroy our subconscious free-will, by accepting the cross-- and I have no idea HOW, does it worry you this resembles the Scientology sectarian's beliefs? They have certain de-programming techniques.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 28, 2000.


Dear Eugene,

1)I have never used the word "ignorant" in my posts, so you are completely wrong when you say that have accused you to be ignorant.

2) you are not Jesus and you have not the right to accuse somebody who has different theological interpretations from yours to be a "white sepulcre" or anything like that. This is not an admonishment, but a simple insult. 3) my thesis has nothing to do with scientology; it is evident that you have misunderstood my meaning.

4) I did not realize that I did not answer to one of your questions. Please, ask to me your question again, so that I can give you my answer.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 29, 2000.


Dear Marco, There's no need to bluster over a stronger than usual reply to your arguments. Try to remember they're still opinions, not proven fact. If others disagree, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. If you sincerely wish to exchange opinions, lower your temper. You may simply tell me to leave this thread if my suggestions are unwanted. I'll leave.

I haven't asked a question, I stated that I believe in the ATONEMENT as taught from the beginning in our Church. It is a tenet of our faith; and I'm still convinced that Christ's death was a sacrifice. It was the price He paid for the sins of mankind. Justice may indeed require no innocent is blamed for the guilt of another. But in Jesus' sacrifice, He assumes humanity's blame, a sin acquired through descent from Adam. Though He never sinned, he shared our humanity.

His sacrifice then, is offered for us, because we are in original sin from birth. It is not injustice for Him to offer Himself up for ME, a sinner. I certainly deserve to die, and He unites His humanity to mine on the cross. He does it freely, not because it is imposed on Him from above. If it weren't a free offering, it would be unjust. That is my understanding of His Atonement. I think I'm correct.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 29, 2000.


>>>I haven't asked a question, I stated that I believe in the ATONEMENT as taught from the beginning in our Church. It is a tenet of our faith; and I'm still convinced that Christ's death was a sacrifice. <<<

The word "sacrifice" can have different meanings. Both Old Testament people and pagans shared the idea that God is appeased by animal sacrifices. Their concept of sacrifice is that the sacrifice is something used to appease God or to satisfy God’s justice. I will indicate this concept of sacrifice as "sacrifice n.1". If this is your concept of sacrifice, I certainly disagree. I have a completely different concept of sacrifice ; let me give an example. Suppose that you have only a loaf of bread, and you give it to an hungry poor man along the street. This is certainly a sacrifice, because your stomach will remain empty. This sacrifice is not used to appease God or to satisfy God’s justice ; this sacrifice is necessary to satisfy the poor’s hunger. This sacrifice is then first of all an act of mercy towards the poor, and God is pleased with our acts of mercy. I will indicate this second concept of sacrifice as "sacrifice n.2". Jesus’ sufferings and death were neither to satisfy God’s justice nor to appease God. So Jesus’ Passion was not a "sacrifice n.1". Jesus’ Passion was to destroy our distrust and to create in us the true and perfect faith. So Jesus’ Passion was a "sacrifice n.2".

>>>>It was the price He paid for the sins of mankind.

My interpretation of the word "prize" is symbolic. His sufferings are the consequences of our sins, and so they can be considered symbolically the prize paid for our sins.

>>>>Justice may indeed require no innocent is blamed for the guilt of another. But in Jesus' sacrifice, He assumes humanity's blame, a sin acquired through descent from Adam.

My interpretation of this "assumption of humanity’s blame" is again symbolic.

>>>Though He never sinned, he shared our humanity. His sacrifice then, is offered for us, because we are in original sin from birth.

I think that Christ offered His life for us in the sense that He knew that only His sufferings and death could have created the true and perfect faith in our heart and so He accepted to die on the Cross.

>>>It is not injustice for Him to offer Himself up for ME, a sinner. I certainly deserve to die, and He unites His humanity to mine on the cross.

My interpretation of this "union of His humanity to ours on the Cross" is again symbolical.

We have certainly a completely different interpretation of the Cross. Your interpretation is based on a literal interpretation of some verses of the Bible, which in my opinion use a purely symbolic language.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), November 29, 2000.


Dear Marco,
It isn't usual for me to answer unless I feel I'm truly adding to the understanding of a problem. I may go back and contemplate the nuances of your thesis, and see how I can reconcile it to my way of thinking. For themoment I'll say only this much about ''sacrifice''. You've construed the practice among the Israelites as at best the same as sacrifice offered by pagans to their gods. In form of appeasement of the gods. In ancient Mexico I know, sacrifices were made in order that the sun might continue to bring forth crops, therefore life-- to the Indians. This is pagan sacrifice.

But I've always maintained the sacrifices of the Hebrews as commanded by God to be formal offerings of self-denial by His creature toward the Creator. The offering of Abel in Genesis, we are told, was pleasing to God. It was the first fruits of his flocks-- a surrendering of his very best goods, to the Creator. This was hardly a pagan offering. What good were lambs, and their ''fat portions'' to God? Yet they were offered in self-denial. That was the understanding between God and his creature.

Jesus Christ's offering of His blood and His life was pleasing to His Father who saw it as the supreme act of self-denial. There is a supreme sacrifice, God accepts it from His own Son, and its infinite value is offered out of love for humanity. Not in any way similar to pagan practices.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 29, 2000.


>>>>But I've always maintained the sacrifices of the Hebrews as commanded by God to be formal offerings of self-denial by His creature toward the Creator.

This is not completely true ; in fact, the Old Testament sacrifical system includes also sacrifices to be done in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins of the people of Israel. This kind of sacrifices were not different from the pagan sacrifices, which were made to appease their gods.

>>>>The offering of Abel in Genesis, we are told, was pleasing to God.

Abel was a primitive man ; his behavior was then conditioned by his primitive culture. God judged Abel with respect to his era and to his culture. We live in a new era, because Christ has revealed to us the true nature of God, and we cannot behave as Abel behaved.

>>>>It was the first fruits of his flocks-- a surrendering of his very best goods, to the Creator. This was hardly a pagan offering.

I think that you should study better history ; you would learn that also pagans made similar sacrifices to their gods.

>>>>Jesus Christ's offering of His blood and His life was pleasing to His Father who saw it as the supreme act of self-denial.

There is no doubt that the Cross is the supreme act of self-denial ; however, Christ did not accept to suffer and die in order to offer God a supreme act of self-denial. In fact, God is the loving Father, and He does not want that His children suffer only to offer Him some acts of self-denial. God is not a sadistical being and He is not pleased with unnecessary sufferings. God did not need to see Jesus suffering on the cross in order to know that Jesus loved Him ; God already knew Jesus’ love for Him. It is us who needed to see Jesus suffering on the cross in order to believe in Him. God wants our sufferings only when they are necessary to help our neigbour, as in the example of the hungry poor, described in my previous post. God does not want unnecessary sufferings. God is not pleased with unnecessary physical sufferings.

>>>>There is a supreme sacrifice, God accepts it from His own Son, and its infinite value is offered out of love for humanity.

I strongly disagree. God accepted Christ’s sacrifice only because He knew that this sacrifice was necessary to destroy our distrust and to create in our heart the true faith. In fact, because of the hardness of our heart, we needed the proof that God loves us in order to trust Him and to have a true faith in Him.

>>>>Not in any way similar to pagan practices.

According to my interpretation Christ’ s sacrifice was not certainly in any way similar to pagan practices, while according to your interpretation it was not different from pagan practices ; in fact, if I have not misunderstood, you are saying that the Cross was only an act of self-denial offered to please God. In many pagan societies, human sacrifices were used and sometimes, the victim was a voluntary ; so also in that case the victim offered himself as an act of self-denial to his gods, which is not very different from what you are saying of Christ’s sacrifice. Also kamikaze islamic terrorists accept to die together with their bombs ; also they offer acts of self-denial to their god, but God is certainly not pleased with their attacks. God is not please with any act of self-denial. God is pleased only with those acts that are necessary for a good purpose. This is the reason of my question : why was Jesus’ death necessary ?

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), December 01, 2000.


My dear Marco, Why should I fence words with you? Your belief is clearly adamant. I really fail to see how you justify any of it, other than by interpreting Scripture across the grain of Catholic teaching. Your objection to my word Hubris is basically the same kind of logic. You see nothing vain in your opinion, but all who oppose it happen to be wrong. Why? Because you say so. That is the important factor.

If you maintain all sacrifice in the Old Testament is brutal and primitive, even when God commands it, consider Deuteronomy 12: 30-31, ''. . . How did these nations (pagans) worship their gods? I, too (the Hebrew) would do the same. You shall not thus worship the Lord your God, -- for they have offered their gods every abomination, even burning their sons and daughters . . . '' --Meaning, I think here God distinguished very clearly one sacrifice from the other. It was not one and the same, nor of the same primitive design. He commanded sacrifice from the people of Israel. That is nothing less than the facts.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 01, 2000.


1 Corinthians 1:10-31

But, dear brothers, I beg you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves.Let there be real harmony so that there won't be splits in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. For some of those who live at Chloes house have told me of your arguments aand quarrels, dear brothers. Some of you are saying,"I am a follower of Paul"; and others say that they are for Apollos or for Peter; and some that they alone are the true followers of Christ. And so , in effect, you have broken Christ into many pieces.

But , did I Paul, DIE FOR YOUR SINS? Were any of you baptized in my name? I am so thankful now that I didn't baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius. For now no one can think that I have been trying to start something new, beginning a Church of Paul," Oh, yes, and I baptized the family of Stephanas. I don't remember ever baptizing anyone else. For Christ didn't send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; and even my preaching sounds poor, for I do not fill my sermons with profound words and high sounding ideas, for fear of diluting the mighty power there is in the simple message of the cross of Christ.

I know very well how foolish it sounds to those who are lost, when they hear that Jesus died to save them. But we who are saved recognize this message as the very power of God. For God says,"I will detroy all human plans of salvation no matter how wise they seem to be, and ignore the best ideas of men, even the most brilliant of them."

So what about these wise men, these scholars, these brilliant debaters of this world's great affairs? God has made them all look foolish, and shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. For God in His wisdom saw to it that the world would never find God through human brilliance, and then He stepped in and saved all those who believed His message, which the world calls foolish and silly. It seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven as proof that what is preached is true; and it is foolish to the Gentiles because they believe only what agrees with their philosophy and seems wise to them. So when we preach about Christ dying to save them, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. But God has opened the eyes of those called to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, to see that Christ is the mighty power of God to save them; Christ Himself is the center of God's wise plan for their salvation. This so-called "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest plan of the wisest man, and God in His weakness-Christ dying on the cross- is far stronger than any man.

Notice among yourselves, dear brothers, that few of you who follow Christ have big names or power or wealth. Instead, God has deliberately chosen to use ideas the world considers foolish and of little worth in order to shame those people considered by the world as wise and great. He has chosen a plan despised by the world , counted as nothing at all, and used it to bring down to nothing those the world considers great, so that no one anywhere can ever brag in the presence of God.

For it is from God alone that you have your life through Christ Jesus. He showed us God's plan of salvation; He was the one who made us acceptable to God; He made us pure and holy and gave Himself to Purchase our salvation. As it says in the Scriptures, "If anyone is going to boast, let him boast only of what the Lord has done."

Said and done.....

-- SSM (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), December 02, 2000.


"But, dear brothers, I beg you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yourselves. Let there be real harmony so that there won't be splits in the church. I plead with you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose."

This is a beautiful quotation you have provided, SM. However, it was not intended to stand alone. Please notice that St. Paul said, "be of one mind, united in thought and purpose."

But the four participants here are not of one mind. There appears to be a division of 3-to-1 or 2-to-1-to-1. How, then, can people come to be "of one mind," if the topic is a matter of Catholic doctrine (in faith or morality)? By magic? By ignoring each other? No. I believe that it is done through prayer and discussion carried out with as much respect as possible. And if the participants are Catholics, there usually can be a very short discussion indeed. Why? Well, let us suppose that one Catholic party in the dispute demonstrates that the Church has taught, in an authoritative way, that there is one and only one doctrine concerning the controversial subject. Or let us suppose that one Catholic party in the dispute demonstrates that the Church has authoritatively rejected the other Catholic party's belief. When either of these kinds of demonstration has been made, then both (or all) of the Catholics who are disputing must agree to give (at least) a "loyal submission of will and intellect" to what the Church has taught. (Even a greater degree of submission is required under certain circumstances.) [What I have just stated about submission to doctrine comes from the Second Vatican Council's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church."]

The point I'm making, SM, is that God does not want Christians to have "peace at the expense of truth." In other words, if we find ourselves in disagreement, we don't simply ignore each other and walk away. We seek unity through sharing words and looking into the Church's teaching. But if one does not belong to an infallible "teaching church," then one has only one's own intellectual powers (or weaknesses) on which to depend. One who does not belong to an infallible teaching church may claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit also, but no one can verify such a claim -- and we can see how undependable this claim is by noticing the existence of multiple, mutually contradictory doctrines being espoused by individuals who belong to various non-teaching churches (or to no church at all), all of which individuals claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), December 02, 2000.




-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), December 02, 2000.

John,oops, I mean SN,

I want to commend you on the way you handled the Darian thing. What a mess.( You are Johnny-on-the-spot.)

I spent much time in prayer, and some time on my knees, asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance.( and I realize that you don't believe that the Holy Spirit would speak to a mere non-catholic woman like me). Marco had stated that there is no verse in the Bible that says "Jesus died to pay the price for our sins".

So, there I was sitting in bed and talking to God, praying for help.I had decided to just go to sleep( it was around 1:30 AM) I was about to turn the light off and I noticed my Bible sitting there, so I decided to read a little. I just opened it , right there to 1Corinthians 1 and started reading, and even read right past the part where Paul said, "But did I, Paul, die for your sins?" I read a little more, then..BLAM.. right in front of me was the verse that God wanted me to share. A flood of love poured over me and I just started weeping and praising God.

So, there it is, meant for those who have "Eyes to see and ears to hear". You said, >>The point I'm making, SM, is that God does not want Christians to have"Peace at the expense of Truth". In other words, if we find ourselves in disagreement, we don't simply ignore each other and walk away. We seek unity through sharing words and looking into the Churches teaching.>>

Well, if I wanted peace at any cost , I wouldn't still be here. God has put me here for a reason, and it is not to go BACK to Catholicism. His will is what I want, always.

I love you and Eugene and Enrique, and I don't mind being admonished when I step out of line. But I did not step out of line with the Scripture that I shared. If your conscience was bothering you, that's between you and the Lord, maybe you should talk to Him about it.

I am praying for you all.

Susan

-- SSM (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), December 02, 2000.


To tell you the truth, Susan, there are quite a few verses in the Holy Bible that lend themselves as proof Jesus died for our sins. It's really a no-brainer; except-- We have here an unorthodox interpretation, or application of scriptural truths, anxious to express a different, more ''scientific'' view. This man isn't out to prove Jesus didn't save us. He wants to interpret the salvation events in a psychological-- and humanistic manner. Where I'm balking at his thesis is, he thinks our ''free will'' isn't free; our sins are ingrained in the psyche, and only a ''fixation'' on the cross can give us a sinless existence.

If it's true, that means we have received the sacraments only as an afterthought of God's. I hesitate to make further comment, because Marco may become exasperated if I'm on the ''wrong track'' again. Let him correct me if I'm wrong. Oh, well!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 02, 2000.


EC, here is the very first line of MB's first message: "Why were Jesus' sufferings and death necessary for our salvation?" Then he went into a long explanation of his theory about this, including some of the elements that you and I find somewhat disturbing. Other questionable elements came out later.

MB's thesis is stated in two sentences, repeated several times in this thread:
1. "Jesus suffered and died in order to prove unequivocally God's love for us and to dissipate our doubt, our distrust and our lack of faith" and
2. "Christ's sacrifice was not to satisfy God's Justice or to give us simply the forgiveness of our sins, since God can forgive our sins without the Cross."

In another place, he writes something that (I think) does not sound right to you and me: "In no verse is it said that the Cross was to appease God or to satisfy God's Justice. The point is that the Cross was not to appease God, but to appease our obstinate distrust and incredulity towards God. God never needed the Cross, but we needed to truly believe with all our heart in God."

Another person here wrongly stated that MB claimed "that there is no verse in the Bible that says, 'Jesus died to pay the price for our sins.'" Actually, MB said this: "His sufferings are the consequences of our sins, and so they can be considered symbolically the price paid for our sins."

Having been extremely busy, I hope that tomorrow I will have a chance to respond to MB in the way I have wished to do for three days. I look forward to seeing his response to what I will be writing.

SN

PS to SM: Don't even bother to try. The comments and insults you express toward me are now reaching the pitiable stage. In your last post, so many of your thoughts were wrong that it would take me half an hour to correct them all. In the future, I will have to restrict my comments on your errors to condemning those that are dangerously heretical (e.g., that you think the Holy Spirit "speaks" to people).

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), December 02, 2000.


SN,

Bring it on...Baby.

I don't mind being persecuted, I count it as JOY!

Love, SSM

-- SSM (non-catholic) (heartwjesus@yahoo.com), December 03, 2000.


Oh, but when it happens, it will not be a case of "being persecuted," SM.
It will be exactly what you called it a couple of posts back: "... I don't mind being admonished when I step out of line."
Yes, if necessary, I will be "admonishing" (not persecuting) you, and -- if you have been honest with us, you will "not mind" my doing it.
If I see, however, that you DO mind it and rebel against correction, I will know that the above quotation was either forgotten or not spoken honestly in the first place. In such a case, I will have to remind you of it. And since this is a "Catholic" site, a Catholic -- not you -- will be the judge of whether or not you have stepped out of line.

SN

-- Slave Nolonger (free@long.last), December 03, 2000.


Dear Slave,

I just would like to say that I appreciate your honesty in reporting my exact words. I did not come here with the intention to convince everybody of my thesis, but simply to have an honest discussion about a question which is so important for me. However some people here have never tried to understand my meaning, but they simply tried to twist my words. Maybe we can never agree, but at least we can try to understand each other.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), December 04, 2000.


I am discussing the same problem on an other forum, where someone sent to me this post :

********************************************************************** *********** "1. Trust expresses the disposition we should have toward God. It includes not only the virtue of hope, but also a lively faith, humility, perseverance and remorse for sins committed. It is simply the attitude of a child who trusts boundlessly in the merciful love and omnipotence of the Heavenly Father in every situation. Trust is so essential to the Divine Mercy devotion that without it the devotion cannot exist; this is because our worship of the Divine Mercy is first and foremost an expression of trust. An attitude of trust alone (even without the practice of other forms of the devotion) already assures the trusting soul of grace that will receive God's mercy. "I desire", Jesus promised, "to grant unimaginable graces to those souls who trust in My mercy." (687) "Let them approach this sea of mercy with great trust. Sinners will attain justification, and the just will be confirmed in good. Whoever places his trust in My mercy will be filled with My divine peace at the hour of death." (1520) Trust is not only the essence or soul of this devotion, but also the condition for obtaining graces.

The graces of mercy, Jesus told Sister Faustina, are drawn by means of one vessel only, and that is - trust. The more a soul trusts, the more it will receive. Souls that trust boundlessly are a great comfort to Me, because I pour all the treasures of My graces into them. I rejoice that they ask for much, because it is My desire to give much, very much. (1578) The soul which will trust in My mercy is most fortunate, because I Myself take care of it. (1273) No soul that has called upon My Mercy has been disappointed or brought to shame. I delight particularly in a soul which has placed its trust in My goodness. (1541)" Site devoted to blessed Faustina kowalska http://www.faustina.ch/index_en.htm

********************************************************************** ***

I think that the above words are in perfect agreement with my thesis; the Passion of the Lord was necessary to destroy our distrust and to create in us the true faith (which is based on boundless trust). It was our doubt and our distrust which represented the true obstacle between us and salvation. Besides it is impossible for a man to be truly sorry for his sins until he does not truly believe to God’s word. In fact it is God Who teaches us what sin is. It is God Who teaches us that we have sinned. We can never be fully aware of the gravity of our sins until the shadow of the doubt remain in us. The Cross was necessary to give us the complete awareness of our sin, and consequently the Cross induce us towards the true repentance.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), December 05, 2000.


My dear Marco,
We have it on the best authority that far from being ''slaves of sin because we are slaves of our unconscious, slaves of ourselves'', therefore unable to break out of this psychological ''bondage'', a person in sin has only to confess it and resolve to sin no more, and the Sacrament of Penance administered by Christ's ordained priest will absolve him/her of all sin.

You may think that 2,000 years after the apostles, the truth is now seen clearly, in your thesis. So then, by your theory many millions of Catholics have been lost; not understanding all you now reveal to us. They must have died in ''bondage'' to sin; all except an unknown few that realised what the cross meant. Is this not a little extravagant? Do you insist on going ahead and building on the thesis, without a look backwards just in case these things were already accomplished for us?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 06, 2000.


Dear Eugene,

I don’t know why I missed your last post. I have read it just today, so my reply is very late. It is completely false that "a person in sin has only to confess it and resolve to sin no more, and the Sacrament of Penance administered by Christ's ordained priest will absolve him/her of all sin." In fact that person must be truly repented in his heart. It is impossible for a man to be truly repented for his sins until he does not truly believe to God’s word. It is God Who teaches us what sin is. It is God Who teaches us that we have sinned. We can never be fully aware of the gravity of our sins until the shadow of the doubt remain in us. The Cross was necessary to give us the complete awareness of our sin, and consequently the Cross induce us towards the true repentance. In fact the Cross proved to us the immense love of God for us, and removes completely the doubt from ourselves.

Then you write :

"So then, by your theory many millions of Catholics have been lost; not understanding all you now reveal to us. They must have died in ''bondage'' to sin; all except an unknown few that realised what the cross meant."

You go on twisting my words, instead of trying to understand. I have never said that those who do not understand my thesis are lost. I said that only the Cross could destroy our doubt and our distrust. Only the Cross could create in us the true and perfect faith. This is a direct effect of the Cross on our psiche, and does not depend on our efforts; Besides this direct effect occurs at the unconscious level, so it is not necessary that we are aware of it. In other words, the Cross acts also on those who have not rationally understood the mechanism throgh which the Cross brings them to salvation. Then you wrote :

"Is this not a little extravagant? Do you insist on going ahead and building on the thesis, without a look backwards just in case these things were already accomplished for us? "

What is extravagant is only your distortion of my words. I certainly insist with my thesis, because I know that it is right.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 11, 2001.


Hello, Marco.
Please do not be offended by what I am about to say. I bring it up only to improve communications and to help you avoid further difficulty.
I have to assume that you are from Italy and that English is not your "mother tongue." As I was reading this thread in past weeks, I kept strongly suspecting that some of your past conflicts with Eugene had resulted, not from substantive disagreements between you, but from misunderstandings caused by the use of imprecise terminology. This is bound to happen from time to time, and I think that you should both be aware of the possibility.

What made me more certain than ever about my theory was the fact that you incorrectly used the word "until" in two sentences in your latest post. The error makes these sentences extremely unclear to native speakers of English. Here they are:
--- "It is impossible for a man to be truly repented for his sins until he does not truly believe to God’s word."
--- "We can never be fully aware of the gravity of our sins until the shadow of the doubt remain in us."

I believe that the correct expression that you should use, instead of "until," is "as long as." This would transform your sentences into the following, which are very clear expressions:
--- "It is impossible for a man to be truly repentant for his sins as long as he does not truly believe in God's word."
--- "We can never be fully aware of the gravity of our sins as long as a shadow of doubt remains in us."

I commend you for your carrying on this difficult work in English. I sometimes try to write in Spanish, but I do not have nearly as much confidence and skill with Spanish as you have with English. Please carry on.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 11, 2001.


Very well, Marco,
There is nothing to distort about what you've written above. In your eyes, the Sacrament of Penance cannot absolve our sin; on account of our faulty repentance. I only hope all the confessions I made in the past weren't useless, since I never really had any idea how I should repent, except to ask God's divine forgiveness, and sincerely resolve not to return to my sin.

Maybe what I shall do is give up sacramental confession until your method has had a chance to bring me to real repentance. Is there a way you can show me to fixate my thoughts on the cross alone? I always did revere the Holy Cross. It is the sign of Jesus Christ, after all. Upon that cross my sins were expiated by Our Lord (or did you object to that?)-- and all I should have to do now is build up my supreme confidence in the cross.

Not in the old way that I confided, like a believing Christian. In the way modern psychology and a new understanding of the subconscious indicates. Is there more you think I should know, to arrive at a better understanding, and subsequently true repentance?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 11, 2001.


Marco, you said,

It is completely false that "a person in sin has only to confess it and resolve to sin no more, and the Sacrament of Penance administered by Christ's ordained priest will absolve him/her of all sin." In fact that person must be truly repented in his heart.

I don't mean to speak for Eugene, but I believe he would have *meant* that the person WAS repentent or it wouldn't be a real confession.

The Catechism of the Catholic church (under the Penance section) states:

1448 Beneath the changes in discipline and celebration that this sacrament has undergone over the centuries, the same fundamental structure is to be discerned. It comprises two equally essential elements: on the one hand, the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; on the other, God's action through the intervention of the Church. The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of satisfaction, also prays for the sinner and does penance with him. Thus the sinner is healed and re-established in ecclesial communion.

Contrition is later defined as:

1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."[50]

Therefore it seems to me that your fears about the Sacrement of Penance are unfounded. One can't really receive the benefits of the Sacrement without being sorry for their actions, and sincere in trying not to sin again.

Frank

BTW, Link to Catechism search engine

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 11, 2001.


Dear John,

thank you for your post. My english is not very good and you are right when you say that the word "until" has to be replaced by "as long as" in my previous post.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 12, 2001.


Dear Frank,

I know the catechism and I have no fear about the sacrament of Penance. My point is that the sacramant of Penance is based on true repentance, and that true repentance is one of the consequences of the psychologic impact of the Cross on us. In other words, without the Cross, we couldn't receive the benefits of the sacrament of Penance because no true repentance can exist in us as long as the doubt remains in us, and only the Cross destroys the doubt and the distrust present in our heart.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 12, 2001.


Dear Eugene,

you go on distorting my words. In fact I have never said that your confessions were useless and I have never spoken about a method to bring you to repentance. I have only said that our repentence is a consequence of the psychologic impact of the Cross on us; this is true also for you, even if you are not aware of this fact.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 12, 2001.


Dear Marco--
Please do not keep saying I distort your words. When I pose the contrary meaning to your statement it is to show the absurdity of your conclusion. If every time you made an absurd remark, I let it go by without comment, where would the dialogue go? Are you just a person that dislikes being confronted with facts?

I have real problems with your thesis. It makes the case that free will is not free, that the unconscious is forcing us into sin, whether we repent or not.

Though I can accept that there may be some, even many who sin from compulsion, unconscious motives do not (except for mental illnesses) really affect free will. Even the most hardened sinner can be changed, by God's grace. Conversely, there are sinners that do not feel remorse at all. To them any psychological impact from the cross is impossible, they are unrepentant.

God said to the Hebrews, ''The command which I enjoin you is not too mysterious and remote for you. It is not up in the sky, that you should say, 'Who will go up in the sky to get it for us, that we may carry it out? Nor is it across the sea, so you should have to say, Who will cross the sea to get it for us, and tell us of it, --No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts. You have only to carry it out.'' And to St. Paul, He said merely: ''My grace is enough for you.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 12, 2001.


Marco,

I think I partially misunderstood you at first reading, when you say, "the Cross", you really mean Christ's ACTIONS on the cross, and not the cross itself, right?

I think now I understand what you are saying in that Christ's actions give us the strength to truly believe, but must disagree that this comes with a loss of free will. If we EVER don't have free will, all is meaningless. How can you be judged on your actions if (even in a good way) you don't have the freedom to make a choice?

Frank

P.S. Please correct me if I'm mis-stating your beliefs.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 12, 2001.


Dear Frank,

I use the word "Cross" only as an abbreviation for "Christ's sufferings and death on the Cross".

As far as free-will is concerned, let me try to explain what I mean. I give you a very simple example in order to explain what I mean when I say that we are slaves of our unconscious (that is slaves of ourselves) and why I think that this slavery represents the correct interpretation of Jesus' words; John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Whoever commits sin is the slave of sin.

I have four children and they are reciprocally jealous; they are completely anaware of their jealousy and when I explain to them that the reason why they often quarrel is their jealousy, they firmly deny. From my children I have learned how much I was jealous of my brother when I was a child. I was not aware of it, but I have analized my past behaviour and I have clearly understood how much my behavior was conditioned by my jealousy. I WAS A SLAVE OF MY JEALOSY. In modern psychology there are many examples of this kind of slavery, due to existence in our unconcious of feelings, fears, etc which condition our choices and our behavior even if we are not aware of their existence. I think that free-will is only a rational capacity to make choices. Our free-will gives us the capacity to control our actions but it does not give us the capacity to choose or to change our feelings or desires, because they are simply the consequences of what we are (our heart or unconscious, which represents the nucleous of ourselves). For example, we can undertand that our jealousy is bad and with our free-will we can try to prevent that our actions are determined by our jealousy. Nevertheless our free-will is unable to eliminate our jealousy from ourselves, because our jealousy lies in our unconscious, and we have no control on our unconscious. With our intelligence we can understand that we are evil and that we have evil desires and feelings. We can then become aware that our desires are evil ; nevertheless, we cannot eliminate them ; they remain in us. With our free-will we can choose to ask to God to destroy our evil unconscious (heart) (which implies the destruction of our evil desires and feelings) and to give us a new heart ; this new heart is the Holy Spirit. In fact, God has the power to make us partecipate to His life, which means that He can live in us, so that we can experience the beauty of His holy life. When we love, it is Christ who love in us. When we love, we are led by our love, and not by our free-will. For example, when I rejoice for a good thing occurred to somebody I love, I do not use my free-will; my rejoicing is simply spontaneous and is a direct consequence of love. When John the Baptist leadped of joy in his mother’s womb, he did not used his free-will, but he was simply led by the Holy Spirit. Many other examples can be given.

In order to clarify, let me try to explain my concept of man. What is a man? He is certainly a conscious person, aware of himself, of his own thoughts, feelings, knowledges. But not only this. A man is also an unconscious person. Actually, my unconscious knows much more things about myself than my conscious myself do. It is natural for me to identify myself with my conscious person, who I really feel as the personal myself. However, my unconscious controls many aspects of my life: many things that I do not remember are registered in my unconscious and they can condition my behavior and determine my personality. My unconscious has his own life, his own intelligence and his own will out of my consciousness. My unconscious thinks and elaborate the information he gets through my conscious life. Also my unconscious is then myself.

The discovery of an intelligent and autonomous unconscious life is due to psychoanalisys; it has been widely proved that an infantile shock has often serious consequences on the personality of the adult, even if he has no conscious memory of it. It is possible through a proper process to take out of the unconscious those hidden memories, which is a necessary process for the healing of the psychic disease. It is also shown that the unconscious tries to comunicate his uneasiness and problems to the conscious self in several ways through a symbolic language; one is the case of recurrent dreams, which disappear after the dream has been correctly interpreted. Actually, all our dreams, even if they appear meaningless, have a symbolic meaning. Our unconscious life can be defined as a parallel life out of our consciousness. There are several ways to observe the effects of our everyday unconscious life. Some simple examples: it happened to me several times that I went to bed with an unresolved problem in my mind, and when I got up next morning I had the solution. I had found that solution in my unconscious life. Again: if I try to play a piece I have studied some time ago, it often happened to me that I cannot remember the notes; but, if I sit to the piano without thinking about the notes, I can play it perfectly, since my unconscious remember very well the notes (actually I think that our artistic perception dwells mostly in our unconscious). When I am absorbed by my thoughts I often do several things that soonafterwards I do not remember. Several other similar examples can be given. Let me consider the process through which babies learn to speak; a child is able to speak correctly, even if he has no conscious idea of grammatical laws. He will study them only many years later at school. Babies' unconscious analyses adults' words and deduces the grammatical laws. The death of our "old man" means for me the death of our unconscious, and the implantation of our conscious self in Christ. So when we are born again of the Spirit (John 3:5), it is the Christ Who lives in us. So we all will be one in Christ, because we will have "the mind of Christ" 1Co 2:16. The death of old man cannot mean the death of our conscious self, since the awareness of our past, of our previous sins will not be wiped out; the psychologic consequences of our sins, which are hidden in our unconscious, will instead be wiped out.

You asked:"How can you be judged on your actions if (even in a good way) you don't have the freedom to make a choice?"

As I have explained above, we have the freeedom to make a choice, but this choice is conditioned by what we are (at the unconscius level). We have the capacity to understand what is good and what is bad, and we have the capacity to fight against our evil unconscious desires with our free-will but we have no direct control on our unconscious, where our evil desires are originated. With our free-will we can then choose to ask to God to eliminate our evil unconscious desires, which implies a radical change of ourselves, because our choices will no longer be conditioned by our unconscious, but our actions will be spontaneously good because they will be determined by the presence in us of the Holy Spirit. I hope this clarify my point of view, even if I understand that it is a rather controversial issue. Please, ask again if you need further clarification.

Marco.



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 15, 2001.


>>>>Please do not keep saying I distort your words. When I pose the contrary meaning to your statement it is to show the absurdity of your conclusion.

No, Eugene, you are not showing the absurdity of my conclusion, but the absurdity of your wrong interpretation of my words.

>>>Are you just a person that dislikes being confronted with facts?

I have discussed this issue on several other forums, and I have found people who understood my thesis (independently from the fact that they might agree or disagree). The point is that you do not undertand my thesis and simply go on drawing wrong conclusions.

In my post to Frank I have discussed the issue of free-will. I hope that this can clarify also to you my thesis.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 15, 2001.


Dear Marco,
I understand how you must feel. I may have spoken rashly in calling it absurdity. You aren't that at all. I think your reasoning is a bit esoteric; and it does confuse me. Let me say here, I won't interfere any more. Not because I don't hold my own views, but for the sake of peace. And, I must confess, there are really many, many things that are over my head. Therefore, I should give you the benefit of the doubt. You haven't actually over-stepped the teachings of the Church-- yet.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 15, 2001.

Jmj

Good day, gentlemen.
Frank stated to Marco: "I think now I understand what you are saying in that Christ's actions give us the strength to truly believe, but must disagree that this comes with a loss of free will. If we EVER don't have free will, all is meaningless. How can you be judged on your actions if (even in a good way) you don't have the freedom to make a choice?"

At first, I was pleased with Marco's reply: "... we have the freeedom to make a choice, but this choice is conditioned by what we are (at the unconscius level). We have the capacity to understand what is good and what is bad, and we have the capacity to fight against our evil unconscious desires with our free-will, but we have no direct control on our unconscious, where our evil desires are originated. With our free-will we can then choose to ask to God to eliminate our evil unconscious desires ..."

I say that I was pleased with this answer "at first." But I have to ask Marco:
Is the choice "to ask God to eliminate our evil unconscious desires" something that we do just once -- for all time -- or once a day, or each time we confess our sins, or each time we are tempted to sin? This is not clear to me.

Marco also wrote: "My unconscious has his own life, his own intelligence, and his own will out[side] of my consciousness. ... The death of our "old man" means for me the death of our unconscious, and the implantation of our conscious self in Christ ... The death of old man cannot mean the death of our conscious self, since the awareness of our past, of our previous sins will not be wiped out; the psychologic consequences of our sins, which are hidden in our unconscious, will instead be wiped out."

I cannot agree very much with this, and I would state my objections in the following ways:
We actually have only one "life," not two -- and it is a combination of our conscious and unconscious functions. There is never a "death of our unconscious," except when our soul leaves our body when we die.
We actually have only one "intellect," not two -- and it is a mysterious combination and interaction of the immaterial soul and the material brain.
We actually have only one "will," not two -- and it is our free will, which (like the intellect) is an element of our soul. Our will would not have been called "free" by the Church, if it were actually a complete slave to our unconscious.

I am concerned that someone may take Marco's theory as an excuse for all his sins. "Oh, I could not help it. My unconscious took over. I did not really sin." A person who thinks this was could become self-righteous and think himself never in need of celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I'm sure that you will disagree with my criticism, Marco! If so, are you able to present any writings of saints or popes to support your theory? Perhaps my difficulties with your statements will be swept away by your answer to my first question, above (concerning the frequency of our asking God for help.)

God bless you
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 15, 2001.


Marco,

It seems to me that you are attempting to fit a Freudian psychology into Christianity, but with a twist, calling the unconsciousness a separate entity from the conscious. I'd tend to agree with JFG that we act as parts of a whole, and not as isolated personalities. (Not to go off the deep end here ((with Freudianism)), but you might say we reflect the Trinity, being a whole organism that has 3 functional parts, Id, Ego, and Superego... not independent but seeming that way depending on what you wish to study).

I don't think however that God will completely free us of our animal nature here on Earth, that is a part of our make-up. (IMO obviously). I also believe however that this being the case, God as our Father won't punish us for things out of our control any more than you or I would punish our children for bad weather.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 15, 2001.


>>>>But I have to ask Marco: Is the choice "to ask God to eliminate our evil unconscious desires" something that we do just once -- for all time -- or once a day, or each time we confess our sins, or each time we are tempted to sin? This is not clear to me. Dear John, I firmly believe that God always gives us spiritual gifts when we ask with faith. What we receive depends from the measure of faith we have. I think that if a man has sufficient faith to ask God to eliminate every evil unconscious desire and to be filled with the Holy Spirit (and he believes that he has received this) he will receive what he have asked. Mr 11:24 Therefore I say to you, Whatever things you desire, when you pray, believe that you have received them, and you shall have them. If a man does not have such a faith, his santification process will take much time. In any case, the elimination of every evil unconscious desire and the new birth of the Spirit represent the conclusion of the process of santification: 1John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 5:18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who was begotten of God keeps him, and the wicked one does not touch him. >>>>Marco also wrote: "My unconscious has his own life, his own intelligence, and his own will out[side] of my consciousness. ... The death of our "old man" means for me the death of our unconscious, and the implantation of our conscious self in Christ ... The death of old man cannot mean the death of our conscious self, since the awareness of our past, of our previous sins will not be wiped out; the psychologic consequences of our sins, which are hidden in our unconscious, will instead be wiped out."

I cannot agree very much with this, and I would state my objections in the following ways:
We actually have only one "life," not two -- and it is a combination of our conscious and unconscious functions. Yes, our life is a combination of our conscious and unconscious functions; when I said that we have an unconscious life outside of our consciousness I simply meant that we are not fully aware of all what happens in our unconscious, so that a part of our life occurs outside of our consciousness. So we have certainly only one life, but our life occurs on two channels (consciousness and unconsciousness). >>>There is never a "death of our unconscious," except when our soul leaves our body when we die.
The Bible speaks about the death of the old man (Romans 6:6), the replacement of our heart of stone with a new heart (Ez 36:25-27), the new birth of the Spirit. I identify this event with the death of our evil unconscious and this represents for me the conclusion of the santification process; this event may occur both in the present life, but in most cases it occurs only in purgatory. >>>>We actually have only one "intellect," not two -- and it is a mysterious combination and interaction of the immaterial soul and the material brain.
Yes, we have one intellect, but it is not a combination of the immaterial soul and the material brain. It is the combination of consciousness and unconsciousness. Our brain is made only of particles such as electrons and protons, interacting through the electromagneic fields: every materialistic attempt to explain our psychical life implies that what thinks, loves, suffers, desires ets. in us are objects such as electrons or electromagnetic fields. I think that this view is simply absurd. So you cannot identify neither our conscousness nor our unconsciousness with our material brain because both consciousness and unconsciousness are psichical and NOT material entities. Our material brain can rather be identify as the bridge between our psichical life (which consists of both consciousness and unconsciousness) and the external material world. >>>We actually have only one "will," not two -- and it is our free will, which (like the intellect) is an element of our soul. Our will would not have been called "free" by the Church, if it were actually a complete slave to our unconscious.

The fact that we have also an unconscious will is a well-known fact in psychology and I think that it is evident also in our everyday life. I have already pointed out that the way babies learn to speak is a proof of an unconscious intelligent activity, which implies also an unconscious will. If you accept the fact that we have unconscious desires, you cannot reject the idea of an unconscious will, because the concept of desire implies the concept of will. The fact that our conscious will and our unconscious will may be in contrast is described also by Paul in Romans: 7:15 I do not understand that which I do: for I do not do what I want to do; but what I hate is the very thing I do. 7:16 But if I do that which I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 7:17 Now then it is no longer I who does it, but sin which dwells in me. 7:18 For I know that in myself (that is, in my flesh,) no good thing dwells: for to desire what is right is present within me; but to perform what is right, this I cannot do. 7:19 For I do not do the good that I want: but the evil which I do not want, that is what I do. 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin which dwells in me. 7:21 So I find this law at work, that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 7:22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner man: 7:23 But I see another law in the members of my body, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Paul describes here the inner struggle between our unconscious and sinfull will and our conscious will. >>>I am concerned that someone may take Marco's theory as an excuse for all his sins. "Oh, I could not help it. My unconscious took over did not really sin." A person who thinks this was could become self-righteous and think himself never in need of celebrating the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I have said that we cannot destroy our sinfull unconscious desires with our free-will, but we have the duty to ask to God to free us from our sinfull desires. Those who have faith will certainly be freed because God is faithfull. There is no excuse for those who have no faith, and they will remain in their sins. I hope that what I wrote above may clarify. Marco

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 16, 2001.


Frank,

I do not consider our unconscious a separate entity; most probably I have not clearly expressed my point of view. We are a unity, consisting of both consciousness and unconsciousness.

>>>I don't think however that God will completely free us of our animal nature here on Earth, that is a part of our make-up

I disagree with your identification of our unconscious with our "animal nature". In fact our uncoscious is intelligent (and is responsible for our capacity to learn a language) and can understand abstract concepts. So our unconscious is completely human, and does not consists simply of animal instincts. Many people refuse to accept fully his sinfullness and so prefer to think that their sinful desires are only animal instincts. This is onl a false alibi; our sinful desires arise from our unconscious , that is from ourselves.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted by God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, nor does he tempt any man: 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by HIS OWN LUST.

Our unconscious is responsible also of our dreams ; many people are frightened by their sinfull dreams, and so they simply prefer that their dreams are only due to an animal instinct ; but we are responsible also of our dreams, even if only at the unconscious level ; dreams are the result of our unconscious desires, fears, etc.

>>>I also believe however that this being the case, God as our Father won't punish us for things out of our control any more than you or I would punish our children for bad weather.

God will not punish us for our dreams, because we have no control on them, but nevertheless they are the consequences of the existence in us of sinful desires (and not of an animal instinct).

Marco.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 16, 2001.


Jmj

I'm sorry, Marco, but I just cannot agree with your attempted rebuttal of my statements.
We do not have two wills (one conscious and one unconscious). I say again that the theory of two wills seems to be a dangerous one which can be used by a sinner to exculpate himself. We will not find such an idea in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1730ff).

I renew my request that you present Magisterial writings to support what you are saying here. If you cannot present anything Magisterial because you are offering some experimental theological concepts to us, I would prefer not to read this any more. I would opine that this is not a proper forum for "avant garde" theology. I am concerned that you are here only to insist on everyone's adoption of your theory, for I see that you do not participate in any other way in the forum.

Arrivederci.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 16, 2001.


>>>We do not have two wills (one conscious and one unconscious). I say again that the theory of two wills seems to be a dangerous one which can be used by a sinner to exculpate himself.

I do not understand why you think that a sinner should use the theory of two wills to exculpate himself, since I have said that we have the capacity to understand what is good and to fight against our unconscious desires (that is our unconscious will).

>>>We will not find such an idea in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The existence of an unconscious will is a well known fact in psychology. This concept however frightens many people who prefer to deny its existence. This is not much different from those who claims that dinosours never existed only because they see in dinosours a thread for their faith. During history there have been several examples of scientific theories rejected because of a presumed "anti-faith" content (for example the theory of gravitation). Actually, the concept of unconscious does not represent a real thread for the christian faith, even if it implies a development of traditional theological concepts. I do not think that theology is a complete doctrine ; our understanding of the misteries of God is always in progress and through history the Holy Spirit gives us new insights about these misteries. However, some concepts require the knowledge and the understanding of other preliminary notions. You cannot understand quantum mechanics if you do not have an appropriate mathematical background. The important psychological discoveries of the 20th century have provided the preliminary notions necessary for a more deep knowledge of the misteries of our salvation.

>>>>I renew my request that you present Magisterial writings to support what you are saying here.

There were certainly no Magisterial writings to support the eliocentric system when the theory of gravitation was proposed. I have given you some verses from the Bible which clearly supports the idea of the existence of an unconscious will.

>>>If you cannot present anything Magisterial because you are offering some experimental theological concepts to us, I would prefer not to read this any more.

Ok, I understand that you will not read my post.

>>>I would opine that this is not a proper forum for "avant garde" theology.

Can you tell me where I can find a forum for "avant garde" theology?

>>>I am concerned that you are here only to insist on everyone's adoption of your theory, for I see that you do not participate in any other way in the forum.

No, I do not want to convince anybody but only to understand better what kind of objections can be raised to my theology form a traditional point of view.

Best regards,

Marco

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 17, 2001.


Marco,

I disagree with your identification of our unconscious with our "animal nature". In fact our uncoscious is intelligent (and is responsible for our capacity to learn a language) and can understand abstract concepts. So our unconscious is completely human, and does not consists simply of animal instincts.

What bothers me here Marco is that although you say you don't believe the conscious and unconscious are two separate entities, you ascribe the unconsicous with the abilites of an individual. We only have one brain, and are only one being. Part of that brain acts below conscious awareness (you don't have to think about constricting your blood vessels, etc.), part seems "aware" when we are asleep, forming dreams, *possibly* related to what we in conscious state have been concerned with or have experienced. But I would NOT say that leads to calling your unconscious intelligent! You can't teach your consicous mind one language and your unconscious another. I think you are creating a scism in the mind that is greater than really exists. Overall, the parts of the mind act as parts of a whole, not as individuals. Your unconscious *appears* intelligent only because your conscious mind is.

Also, I was referring to animal instincts not as sinful desires, but actual animal needs, such as secreting digestive juices. You keep secreting enzymes when food is in your duodenum whether or not you are *thinking* about it. Your body's basal functions continue even in people who have lost higher brain function. These are unconscious on a physical level. A different matter is what Freud referred to as the Id which would to me represent more of what a modern man might refer to as primitive or sinful desires. I don't think it's appropriate to meld the two into one "unconscious mind", I don't think the structure as I believe you are describing it exists.

God will not punish us for our dreams,

I think you were referring to my earlier post when I was saying (in regards to free will) that we aren't responsible for things we have no control over. (Which I firmly believe in, BTW). I think your statement here though is open to question, given your stated beliefs. If you claim that dreams are a reflection of our *actions* in the waking world, and the problems they create, why *wouldn't* we be responsible for our dreams? They are a reflection of our conduct and of the lives we have made for ourselves, and would indicate that our lives need improvement if our dreams are not Christian in character.

*** Disclaimer: I'm enjoying this as an abstract discussion, and in no way claim that the above represents Catholic doctrine in any way, shape, or form. ***

Thanks,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 17, 2001.


Dear Frank,

We are certainly one being, but we are a complex unity consisting of both consiousness and unconsciousness. When I speak about our unconscious I never refer to functions such as secreting dijestive juices. These physical functions can be explained also from a chemical point of view. Our unconscious is instead a psychical entity and is intelligent and active not only when we sleep, but also when we are awake. The concept of unconscious I have described is the one known in modern psychology (by the way, modern psychology is a wider field than Freud’s theory, and I refer in particular to Jung’s theories). I gave in a previous post the example of how an unconscious jealousy can condition the behavior of a person. In psychoanalisys one can find the descriptions of several consequences of the intelligent activity of the unconscious.

You say that I am creating a scism in the mind ; in a certain sense a scism in the human mind exists because of sin ; let me try to explain what I mean. Sometimes a man commits a sin but he doesn’t admit to himself that he has really committed that sin and so he tries to find some excuse or to forget that fact. So that fact is removed from his conscious memory, but unconsciously he know that he has committed that sin. Sometimes the unconscious sense of guilt has dramatic consequences on that person and gives origin to some mental disease, which can be cured only when the "removed" fact has been discovered. These unconscious mechanisms exist in everybody, even if only in some dramatic cases they give origin to mental diseases. There are many experimental arguments to support the existence of an intelligent unconscious activity (also when we are awake) in modern psychology.

As far as dreams are concerned, our dreams are not a reflection of our actions in the waking world, but they are a reflection of our unconscious desires or fears. We are responsible of our dreams but only at the unconscious level. Through a correct interpretations of our dreams we can know better ourselves. In fact nobody knows himself perfectly and even if we try to be honest with ourselves, there is always something that unconsciously we try to hide to ourselves. We are often much worse than the idea of ourselves we have. So the scism is between what we really are and what we think to be.

I am not surprised that you think that my concept of unconscious does not exist ; this is not an easy concept, and it took many centuries (or better millennia) before humanity discovered this concept. Jung has written several divulgative books on this argument, and if you are interested, I would suggest to read one of his books ; at least you would understand better what I mean.

Marco.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 17, 2001.


Jmj

Please use great care, Frank. The deeds and writings of Carl Jung are not held in high esteem by the Magisterium. Johnette S. Benkovic, in her book, "The New Age Counterfeit," writes, "Colored by his own subjective experiences and attitudes towards God and religion, Jung's psychology is heavily influenced by gnosticism, monism, pantheism, and occultism. Because more and more people are being introduced to Jungian psychology through parish seminars and retreat houses, caution must be excercised!"

Before reading any of his works, you may want to prepare yourself by reading these items from the EWTN library:
The Church's Greatest Threat Since Julian the Apostate ==> http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/JUNGCUL1.TXT
Jung Replaces Jesus in Catholic Spirituality ==> http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/JUNGCUL2.TXT
Interview with an author on the "Jung Cult" ==> http://www.ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/JUNGNOLL.TXT

I reject Marco's patronizing and anti-Magisterial comments concerning the alleged lofty, progressive, and seemingly infallible status of science. I have a high regard for every good thing that science can teach us, for I am realistic about its limitations. Although certain Churchmen have made errors with respect to science (e.g., in the Galileo case), science has been wrong frequently within its own realm -- and even more frequently when it has interfered in the realm of theology.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 17, 2001.


Marco,

That explains it. If you're a Jungian, our disagreement is simple. Jung described the unconscious as:

"the unconscious depicts an extremely fluid state of affairs: everything of which I know, but of which I am not now thinking; everything of which I was once conscious but have now forgotten; everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind; everything which, involuntarily and without paying attention to it, I feel, think, remember, want, and do; all future things that are taking shape in me and will sometime come to consciousness: all this is the content of the unconscious." (Jung, 1954, p.396 as quoted in Moir, 1998)

Jung also believed we possessed a collective unconscious that contained the pool of human experience from very primitive times. Surely Marco, with today's genetic knowledge you realize that this doesn't make sense? That our genes don't rearrange based on our experiences so we CAN'T pass on experience to our children? And with the personal unconscious he says it contains elements of future things that are taking shape in us? Please, Marco ditch Jung. His theory was convenient as a theory, but biologically is impossible to support. If you want a psychiatrist to pattern your life after, try B.F. Skinner.

I also think that you give to much power to the unconscious. Why do you believe that the unconscious can remember everything, when the conscious mind has trouble remembering much of anything? Are you aware of the memory experiments that have been done after simulated accidents? The memory is a very fluid and inaccurate thing, if anything, the unconscious probably has much LESS ties to reality and what really occurred than the conscious, as everything it "sees" has been filtered by several layers of processing by the time it gets there.

With regard to the interpretation of dreams, I don't trust it as much as you seem to. After all, our conscious mind is reinterpretting what we remember of the dream, and then what we later *think* that means! While it may be a helpful psychological tool, I don't think a strong case can be made that it represents the Truth in any way.

I would suggest to read one of his books ; at least you would understand better what I mean.

Before I changed over to the Sciences, as an undergrad I was a psych major. I had more of Jung than I care to recall. How could you follow someone who continued to treat patients while admitting he was having a breakdown himself *at the time*?!!

JFG,

Thanks for the concern, but don't worry, Jung was a nut. And I make my living off "the sciences", so I have a healthy respect for them, as well as a keen knowledge of their limitations.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 17, 2001.


Excellent, Frank! Thank you. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), January 17, 2001.

>>>>Marco,That explains it. If you're a Jungian, our disagreement is simple.

Frank,

let me just say that I am not a Jungian; I simply think that Jung, as well as Freud, had some good intuitions. >>>Jung described the unconscious as:

"the unconscious depicts an extremely fluid state of affairs: everything of which I know, but of which I am not now thinking; everything of which I was once conscious but have now forgotten; everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind; everything which, involuntarily and without paying attention to it, I feel, think, remember, want, and do; all future things that are taking shape in me and will sometime come to consciousness: all this is the content of the unconscious." (Jung, 1954, p.396 as quoted in Moir, 1998)

I think that this is a good definition of unconscious, which does not mean that is a perfect definition.

>>>Jung also believed we possessed a collective unconscious that contained the pool of human experience from very primitive times.

I think that Jung's theory about the collective unconscious represents a weak point in his work.

>>>Please, Marco ditch Jung. His theory was convenient as a theory, but biologically is impossible to support.

I think that you are much influenced by materialism (even if maybe you are not aware of this fact); in fact from a biological point of view, we are only the product of chemical reactions. And chemical reactions in their turn are only the consequeces of electromagnetic interactions between electrons (I am a physicist, so you can trust me in this). Our psichical life (that is our self awareness, our thoughts, our feelings, etc) cannot be explained from a biological point of view, even if atheists and materialists think that it is possible. Every attempt to explain our psychical life from a biological point of view, implies that what thinks, suffers, rejoices in us are objects such as electrons or elecromagnetic fields. So your objection that a psychological theory is impossible to be supported from a biological point of view is inconsistent. (by the way also the christian faith cannot be supported from a biological point of view)

>>>>If you want a psychiatrist to pattern your life after, try B.F. Skinner.

I need no psychiatrist.

>>>>I also think that you give to much power to the unconscious. Why do you believe that the unconscious can remember everything, when the conscious mind has trouble remembering much of anything?

I have never said that our unconscious remember everything; I have only said that some memories remain in our unconscious, even if we have no conscious memory of those facts. This has been widely proved.

>>>>With regard to the interpretation of dreams, I don't trust it as much as you seem to. After all, our conscious mind is reinterpretting what we remember of the dream, and then what we later *think* that means! While it may be a helpful psychological tool, I don't think a strong case can be made that it represents the Truth in any way.

Ok, this is your opinion. I think however that our opinion about dreams is marginal. In particular I think that we have gone very far from the topic I wanted to discuss, that is "why was Christ's Passion necessary for our salvation?".

>>>How could you follow someone who continued to treat patients while admitting he was having a breakdown himself *at the time*?!!

I do not follow Jung. The fact that I believe that Einstein was right about the theory of relativity, does not imply that I follow Einstein. (for example, Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics) As I have said I simply think that Jung had some good intuitions and I partially agree with his concept of unconscious.

>>>>Thanks for the concern, but don't worry, Jung was a nut. And I make my living off "the sciences", so I have a healthy respect for them, as well as a keen knowledge of their limitations.

I think that science is the more direct way to comtemplate the supreme intelligence of God and to contemplate the wonderfulness of creation through our mind instead of through our senses. Besides modern science has unequivocally proved that the image we have of reality through our senses is completely wrong and it as melt science and spirituality. The Schroedinger cat paradox proves very clearly that the materialist view is in strong contraddictions with science. Nothing really exists out of a thinking mind. It is the process of knowledge which brings everything into existence. There is much spirituality in quantum mechanics, even if a great intellectual effort is necessary to understand it. Quantum mechanics proves that material objects, at the microscopic level, cannot be understood or immagined as the material objects we see or touch. The only possible description of reality is throught abstract mathematic objects, such as vectors in Hilbert spaces. Our senses are then absolutely untrustworthy. The non-locality another wonderful meaphisical property of quantum mechancis. Relativity proves that also time and space are subjective parameters. Time do not passes for all men with the same velocity. Time flows in a different way for two men moving with a different velocity. The theory of relativity proves that under certain conditions, an event which represents the future for an observer, becomes the past for another observer travelling at high velocity with respect to the first one. So physics have proven that even if we perceive time as an objective entity, this is absolutely false. Similar consideration can be given for the space.

I know that the capacity to contemplate God also through science is a gift of the Lord. As far as I understand, you have not this gift, but I am sure that you have many other gifts.

Thank you for your kind replies,

Marco.



-- Marco Biagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 18, 2001.


Dear Marco--
I must compliment you on a wonderful statement of your scientific preparation. Frank made good sense, and you made it clear to me that your thesis might not be centered in the whole pschiatric/pschological scenario. I'm relieved.

Your thesis is only that, isn't it? A kind of investigation of the theory? Maybe with long contemplation and God's grace you'll make useful contributions. I don't see why I should not wish you luck. I read Theilard de Chardin, he is considered suspect by many. Yet, he seemed to be close to the truth in many aspects. The ''jury'' is still out in the case of this scientist. I read ''The Philosophy of Man. It wasn't hard reading, and I liked his vision of the ''Omega Point.'' We shall see. I'm prepared to accept whatever the Church authorizes eventually. Many years ago I read J.W.N. Sullivan's fine book, The Limitations of Science. It's a very old book; I wonder if you've read it? A lot of what you say in this latter posting is explainable in his book, too. Fascinating for someone like me. Ciao, Marco--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 18, 2001.


Marco,

Please correct me if I'm mis-stating your beliefs, but I thought your original hypothesis was that the "baggage" (fears, etc.) in our unconscious mind is responsible for keeping people away from Christ. If that's what you believe, it seems to me *very* important that you are using a correct definition of the unconscious mind to base your theory on. If not, any conclusions you draw may be incorrect (as a false premise through a logical process will lead to a false conclusion). That is why I'm nit-picking on your psychological model so much.

Our psichical life (that is our self awareness, our thoughts, our feelings, etc) cannot be explained from a biological point of view, even if atheists and materialists think that it is possible.

To some extent I disagree. Studies of depression, schizophrenia, and seizure disorders using PET scans *all* point to a biological / chemical basis for either mood imbalance, or thought disorders. While I think that we do exceed the sum of our parts, I won't deny that there isn't at least some biological basis for mental state, memory, and personality.

(by the way also the christian faith cannot be supported from a biological point of view)

I agree. That's where faith comes in. If everything could be proven, what would the point be?

If you want a psychiatrist to pattern your life after, try B.F. Skinner.

I need no psychiatrist.

I didn't mean this as a personal insult or suggestion that you see a psychiatrist. I find Skinner's work in behaviorism to have had very real results, and thought you should look up his work, if you are interested in the field. But as you say, he is more of a "materialist", so it may not be your cup of tea. I apologize if I have offended you with this comment, any insult was non-intentional.

Besides modern science has unequivocally proved that the image we have of reality through our senses is completely wrong and it as melt science and spirituality. The Schroedinger cat paradox proves very clearly that the materialist view is in strong contraddictions with science. Nothing really exists out of a thinking mind.

I would disagree with this emphatically, but like you say, it would further deviate us from your original topic on this thread. Perhaps you could start a new one?

Time do not passes for all men with the same velocity. Time flows in a different way for two men moving with a different velocity. The theory of relativity proves that under certain conditions, an event which represents the future for an observer, becomes the past for another observer travelling at high velocity with respect to the first one. So physics have proven that even if we perceive time as an objective entity, this is absolutely false.

Again, this should be a separate thread if you want to stay focused. But wouldn't you say that within a given frame of referrence time passes objectively? For example someone in a valley vs. in outer space? The *objective time* may be different, but isn't their subjective experience of time the same regardless of what time frame they're in?

As far as I understand, you have not this gift,

You are probably right. I just count myself thankful to wake up each morning.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 18, 2001.


>>>Please correct me if I'm mis-stating your beliefs, but I thought your original hypothesis was that the "baggage" (fears, etc.) in our unconscious mind is responsible for keeping people away from Christ.

Frank,

I have never said anything like that. Faith is a gift from God and God knows from the beginning who are those who will be saved. But we cannot know and I have never tried to explain why some are believers and some are unbelievers. I have only discussed the reason why the Cross was necessary for our salvation, and not the reason why unbelievers do not believe. Let me reassume my thesis here. I have discovered that only the Passion of the Lord has swept away the doubt and the distrust from myself and consequently has created the true faith. (as long as the the shadow of the doubt remains in us, even if only at the unconscious level, our faith remains unstable and wavering and we cannot be in fellowship with God) I have discovered in myself the unconscious desire to put God to the test (God, prove to me that I can trust you!) and I think that this is common to everybody, even if most are not aware of this fact. This is the reason why Jesus had to suffer and die. Besides I think that we cannot eliminate our sinful desires with our own strenghts because they are a part of ourselves and comes from our unconscious (heart). We have the capacity to understand that they are evil and we have the capacity to fight against them, but they remain in us and condition our feelings and behavior (this is the slavery of sin of John 8:34 and the inner struggle described in Romans 7:15-23). Only God can free us from our sinful desires and sinful heart (Ez.36:25-27); this is the death of the old man and the new kife in Christ (Ga 2:20). All this implies the concept of an intelligent unconscious activity; The definition of this concept is certainly not easy, but I could use the one given by Jung, after some changes: the unconscious is: everything of which I know, but of which I am not now thinking; many things of which I was once conscious but have now forgotten; many things perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind; many things which, involuntarily and without paying attention to it, I feel, think, remember, want, and do.

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I think that you are much influenced by materialism. Your belief that our psichical life is origated by biolgical processes implies that objets such as electrons or electromagnetic fields think, suffer, love etc. I think that your beliefs are absurd, even if they are very common because of the diffusion of materialism in the present age. I firmly believe that the material reality is a reflection of the psychical reality, which is exactly the opposite of the materialist idea that the material reality causes the psychical reality. Quantum mechanics strongly support my view, and this is the reason why Einstein tried unsuccessfully for all his life to prove that quantum mechanics was wrong.

>>>>I agree. That's where faith comes in. If everything could be proven, what would the point be?

I have a different concept of faith. Every proof requires some kind of hypotesis (even if sometimes they are only implicitly assumed). (For example, your belief that the material reality exists is based on the abitrary hypotesis that your senses are trustworthy. In fact, you do not see an external object: you have only a visual sensation, which is a psychical experience. This has been widely discussed by many phylosophers) No proof can give you a absolute certainty, because your conclusions depend on your hypotesis. In other words, nothing can really be proved. Faith is the absolute certainty which exists in the believer and is intrinsically stronger than any doubt.

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 19, 2001.


Marco,

All this implies the concept of an intelligent unconscious activity;

I agree that Christ's suffering is responsible for redeeming us of our sinful nature. You have not proved that the unconscious is "intelligent", or that an "intelligent" unconscious is MANDATORY for Christ's suffering to save us. It may be your opinion, but it is by no means axiomatic, or proven. (Actually, reading the end of your post, since you don't believe in Proofs ((being dependent on one's hypotheses)), and since your faith doesn't NEED to be proven, I'm suprised you are trying to put forth a theory at all. At best it's irrelevant to you, at worst it's wrong ((or sinful))).

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I think that you are much influenced by materialism. Your belief that our psichical life is origated by biolgical processes implies that objets such as electrons or electromagnetic fields think, suffer, love etc.

No it doesn't! That's the point, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You cannot ascribe the capabilities of the whole individual to each element in the individual. THAT is absurd. Would you say that one molecule of carbon is equal to a tire, or a human, or a tree? I hope not.

I firmly believe that the material reality is a reflection of the psychical reality,

Again Marco, people are a combination of a spiritual and physical being. We are not completely spirits yet, and so don't act like them. Our mental state *is* influenced by our physical world, whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. If PET scans are too esoteric for you, look what happens to a diabetic when their blood sugar gets low -- their mental state is radically affected, by just a PHYSICAL change in the amount of glucose in the bloodstream. To Deny that we are a composite of physical and spiritual beings is woefully incorrect.

You're right in that philosophers have debated idealism for years. The rest of your theory needs work.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 19, 2001.


WOw! There are a lot of interesting ideas in this thread. I barely know any psychology, so I will have to avoid that part of the conversation, and PLEASE be aware that these are my own ideas here. I'm not representing the Church right now; I don't know what it thinks about all this.

FIrst off, about why Jesus had to die. I have often wondered about this too. By human logic, it seems so bizarre: God comes to Earth and teaches and heals people. People kill him. Yet this all means we get the chance at eternal life, which we did not have before we killed Jesus, God the Son. I would, thinking in human logic, assume that rather than saving us, we would all go straight to Hell. But human logic is imperfect; the world and Jesus' sacrifice work on God's terms, not ours. We are not saved because of our worth, but because Jesus loved us so much he died for us.

Secondly, about the sacrifices. Perhaps we are looking at the issue from the wrong end of time. REmember, God is omniscient. He knew about Jesus' sacrifice before it happened-- he gave knowledge of it in prophecy. With this in mind, (and I'm going out on a real limb here), perhaps the sacrifices found in pagan cultures existed because deep in human hearts is the knowledge that a sacrifice is necessary for salvation and protection from evil. Maybe Jesus, instead of copying human sacrifices, was the sacrifice that human societies were trying to copy before it even happened.

I am glad someone mentioned quantum mechanics, becaue that is an area of science that I find both fascinating and spiritually inspiring. It is amazing how many Christian ideas are reflected in the quantum world. For example, the dual nature of light and matter (particle and wave) makes me think of Christ's dual nature. SOmeone, I think Eugene, asked if a carbon atom was as important as a tree or person. Well, to me, it is just as beautifully detailed and complex (in form- I'm not saying a carbon atom has a soul or an intellect)! God's creation is so amazingly detailed and perfect.

And someone mentioned the Shroedinger cat conundrum. The idea, I think, is of a cat that goes to an intersection, and takes both directions. It is not split in half, but is a whole cat in both directions. This is based, I believe, off a p-orbital, which is has a node at the nucleus and is roughly dumbbell shaped. The electron has an equal probability of being in either half of the orbital, but it cannot logically pass through the nucleus. Yet somehow its probability is in both places at once. This phenomenon, thought to be possible only at quantum level, was reproduced recently at the macroscopic level. The experimenter gave a lecture, but I seem to have lost my notes on it. Blast! Well, I will just try to remember, and hope I am not too scientifically inaccurate. The end result of his experiment was a p-orbital shaped gas. It was small, but the gap between the halves was at least the width of a human hair, (it may have been even bigger). The gas was equal on both sides. This should have been only capable at quantum level, which supposedly is very strange, and doesn't work like the rest of the universe. At macroscopic level, it is very shocking. I'm really sorry I couldn't detail it more-- he gave a great lecture. I am afraid maybe I got totally off subject, but the Schrodinger cat problem is no longer as much of a paradox-- things really can be in two places at once. Although, as a cat isn't a gas, and isn't cooled to nearly absolute zero, I doubt we'll be running into him anytime soon. I think this combats your view that Schroedinger's cat combats science. Or maybe I didn't quite understand what you were getting at with the quantum theory bit. And is the mind that nothing exists out of the mind of GOD? Because, of course he brought everything into existence.



-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 21, 2001.


Whether or not the *possibility* Marco could be on the correct course has occurred to me-- I appreciate some of the points he made. You must give him credit for trying to reconcile his idea with a Scriptural promise made by God to man. His examples from the book of Ezekiel, for instance. Many good things can be drawn from the study of God's Word. In the prophetic literature of course, the danger of misconception is always present. Human intelligence hasn't always shown itself equal to the tasks of interpretation.

I'm concerned with the sacrosant aspects of the Crucifixion. All my life I've used the term ''Sacrifice of the Cross'', and now I say crucifixion from deference to one man's thesis. I do believe it was a sacrifice.

To say we had to ''kill Jesus'' for our chance at eternal life is off the mark, too. No one did it to Him; His words tell us, ''I lay down my life; no one can take it away from me.'' (John, 10:18) In a way He was clarifying, ''I will sacrifice My life!''

It ought to put a stop as well, to the quibbling that goes on to our own day: *** The Jews did it-- No, it was the Romans.*** Now Marco maintaining it was not for God's appeasement or for His Justice. It suffices for the Christian to know Jesus died willingly for us. Is it to free us from bondage to sin, psychologically or otherwise? Yes-- because sin is the cause and the weakness born in us from Adam's first disobedience.

Our sins are forgiven through His Blood. In the Cross, and in His perfect offering. My understanding of this mystery is limited. Maybe others can see the intentions of God and His ways with human nature. I just want to serve Him all my life, and return to Him promptly as soon as He commands it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 21, 2001.


Thanks, Eugene, for the great post! Of course we did not "kill" Jesus in that sense. He was a willing sacrifice, and the whole reason he came was to die for us. That always amazes me when I think about his death-- that he could willingly stand such agony. And even when he is on the cross, suffering intense pain, he asks his father to forgive us. Jesus' love and mercy are truly incredible.

-Hannah

-- Hannah (poirot@ukans.edu), January 21, 2001.


Hannah, you said,

Secondly, about the sacrifices. Perhaps we are looking at the issue from the wrong end of time. REmember, God is omniscient. He knew about Jesus' sacrifice before it happened-- he gave knowledge of it in prophecy. With this in mind, (and I'm going out on a real limb here), perhaps the sacrifices found in pagan cultures existed because deep in human hearts is the knowledge that a sacrifice is necessary for salvation and protection from evil. Maybe Jesus, instead of copying human sacrifices, was the sacrifice that human societies were trying to copy before it even happened.

Thanks,

There's another thing I've never thought about, but is definitely worth considering for a bit...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 21, 2001.


>>>You have not proved that the unconscious is "intelligent", or that an "intelligent" unconscious is MANDATORY for Christ's suffering to save us. It may be your opinion, but it is by no means axiomatic, or proven.

Frank,

I have given only some rational arguments which support the idea of an intelligent unconscious; many more arguments can be found in psychologic litterature. I do not think that a theologic thesis can be "proved". Theology is not mathematics.

I wrote :

As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I think that you are much influenced by materialism. Your belief that our psichical life is origated by biolgical processes implies that objets such as electrons or electromagnetic fields think, suffer, love etc.

You replied:

"No it doesn't! That's the point, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

You are completely wrong here. From a phsiycal point of view, the whole is only the sum of the parts. This is what science says. Our brain is nothing more than interacting electrons protons and neutrons. The equations of physics are universally valid and explain every physical process which happens in our brain. This is what science says (I have a degree and a Ph.D. in physics and I am author of several papers on the most important journals of physics; if you want to context my statements you must give me the proof of your scientific knowledges)

>>>> You cannot ascribe the capabilities of the whole individual to each element in the individual.

I don't. I am simply saying what we are from a physical point of view, according to the modern science. Our psychical capabilities cannot be explained from the equations of physics, and they must then be considered intrinsically supernatural. This is in agreement with the Bible; in fact, after having created Adam's body, God breathes His Spirit in him, and only this made him become a living soul. Adam's phychical life (which is my interpretation of the concept of "living soul") begins only after that God breathes in him. >>>>Would you say that one molecule of carbon is equal to a tire, or a human, or a tree? I hope not.

Yes, from a physical point of view, we are not qualitatively different from a tree or from a rock. The same equations explain every physical and chemical process which happens in our body (including our brain) and the ones which happens in a tree or in a rock.

>>>>Again Marco, people are a combination of a spiritual and physical being. We are not completely spirits yet, and so don't act like them. Our mental state *is* influenced by our physical world, whether you wish to acknowledge that or not.

There is no doubt that our psiche is connected to our body; if not, we couldn't interact with the material reality. I have simply said that our psychical life cannot be explained from a scientific point of view, because from a physical point of view we are only interacting particles.

>>>If PET scans are too esoteric for you, look what happens to a diabetic when their blood sugar gets low -- their mental state is radically affected, by just a PHYSICAL change in the amount of glucose in the bloodstream. To Deny that we are a composite of physical and spiritual beings is woefully incorrect.

Pet scans are not esoteric for me since I am a scientist. But Pet scans do not explain the origin of our psichical life; they simply reveal the physical effects produced by our psychical life. As I have said, I do not deny the fact that we are a composite of a psiche and a body (even if my concepts of psiche and body is probably different from yours); There is no doubt that our psiche receives the effects of the status of our body; if not, we couldn't feel pain or pleasure through our body. The point is that while our physical life can be explained from a scientific point of view, our psychical life remains supernatural, because from a physical point of view we are only interacting particles.



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 22, 2001.


Hannah,

I have already explained my objections to you point of view in my previous posts (even if I do not think that you have read them since you say that you have avoided the part concerning psychology (which is the most of my posts)

Let me just say that you have completely misunderstood what the Schrodinger cat paradox is, because it has nothing to do with what you describe in your post. This paradox is discussed in every universitary book on quantum mechanics and remains unsolved (as I have said, it was the reason why Einstein tried unsucessfully for all his life to prove that quantum mechanics was wrong).

-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 22, 2001.


SOrry, Marco! I was trying to follow one of your threads, but I guess I screwed it up. I am not really a physicist (as you may have figured out :)) and I certainly wouldn't want to mislead anyone scientifically. But since I know even less psychology than physics, I did avoid the psychology arguments; I figured I would lack the essential knowledge to understand them. I think I sort of understand what you are saying about the Cross now, and I really like it.

Peace be with you,

Hannah

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.


Marco,

I have given only some rational arguments which support the idea of an intelligent unconscious; many more arguments can be found in psychologic litterature. I do not think that a theologic thesis can be "proved"

But a definition of intelligence can be proposed, and debated as to whether or not it is appropriate. After that it can be seen whether or not the "unconscious" fits this definition. To state that the unconscioius *is* intelligent with out backing that statement up does not withstand *this* peer's review.

"No it doesn't! That's the point, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

You are completely wrong here. From a phsiycal point of view, the whole is only the sum of the parts. This is what science says.

Marco, what I was trying to say here is that a person is composed of a spiritual self, and a physical self, and that in total we are greater than our physical self, but that the expression of our spirits ARE to some degree limited by physical constraints, do you disagree with this (using my low-blood glucose example, for instance)?

Our psychical capabilities cannot be explained from the equations of physics, and they must then be considered intrinsically supernatural.

I don't believe this is true. The *expression* of our spiritual selves is indeed altered by our physical bodies.

Would you say that one molecule of carbon is equal to a tire, or a human, or a tree? I hope not.

Yes, from a physical point of view, we are not qualitatively different from a tree or from a rock.

With an answer like that, you must be a physicist! ;-) The point I was trying to make here is that at different levels, different frames of reference are appropriate. The carbon atom behaves identically in both a rock or a cell -- as a carbon atom, but cells don't behave like rocks. They reproduce, etc. The properties of the *whole* are different even if the individual units act identically, and in fact are interchangeable.

But Pet scans do not explain the origin of our psichical life; they simply reveal the physical effects produced by our psychical life.

I wasn't attempting to (start a new thread) and explain the origins of our spirit. I also disagree that a PET scan would ONLY reveal the effect of our spirit *acting on* our body, but think that ANY diagnostic test for the mind tests the *two-way* interaction of the physical and spiritual.

Lastly, regarding

(I have a degree and a Ph.D. in physics and I am author of several papers on the most important journals of physics; if you want to context my statements you must give me the proof of your scientific knowledges)

I have two objections here. The first is what in English is called the fallacy of "appeal to authority". It's use is (for example) to show a professional football player selling a brand of Orange juice. The implication is that because we *know* the football player is great at football, he must also know a great deal about what constitutes the best orange juice, when in fact he may not know *anything* about orange juice. Similarly, were I to follow up on any references you may give and find you a published Ph.D. physicist, it still wouldn't make you a *knowledgeable* psychologist or theologian -- your statements in these areas need to be backed up like anyone else's, even if I *knew* you were knowledgeable in physics.

Secondly, from a Christian perspective, isn't demanding that someone meet your expectations before you discuss something with them doing what some of Christ's enemies did? For this board, you might want to follow the example of someone who dined with the tax collectors.

As an additional third, my profession demands of me that I not have personal opinions in some areas. As I post on a variety of boards, one or two of them might be considered inappropriate for someone in my position. I don't KNOW that this is true, but don't want to find out the hard way that I was mistaken. My posting should tell you whether or not I'm knowledgeable on the subject I'm posting on, *regardless* of what I *claim* to be proficient in. Conversely, if someone is wrong, they are wrong *regardless* of what their credentials are.

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2001.


Marco,

I have given only some rational arguments which support the idea of an intelligent unconscious; many more arguments can be found in psychologic litterature. I do not think that a theologic thesis can be "proved"

But a definition of intelligence can be proposed, and debated as to whether or not it is appropriate. After that it can be seen whether or not the "unconscious" fits this definition. To state that the unconscioius *is* intelligent with out backing that statement up does not withstand *this* peer's review.

"No it doesn't! That's the point, that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

You are completely wrong here. From a phsiycal point of view, the whole is only the sum of the parts. This is what science says.

Marco, what I was trying to say here is that a person is composed of a spiritual self, and a physical self, and that in total we are greater than our physical self, but that the expression of our spirits ARE to some degree limited by physical constraints, do you disagree with this (using my low-blood glucose example, for instance)?

Our psychical capabilities cannot be explained from the equations of physics, and they must then be considered intrinsically supernatural.

I don't believe this is true. The *expression* of our spiritual selves is indeed altered by our physical bodies.

Would you say that one molecule of carbon is equal to a tire, or a human, or a tree? I hope not.

Yes, from a physical point of view, we are not qualitatively different from a tree or from a rock.

With an answer like that, you must be a physicist! ;-) The point I was trying to make here is that at different levels, different frames of reference are appropriate. The carbon atom behaves identically in both a rock or a cell -- as a carbon atom, but cells don't behave like rocks. They reproduce, etc. The properties of the *whole* are different even if the individual units act identically, and in fact are interchangeable.

But Pet scans do not explain the origin of our psichical life; they simply reveal the physical effects produced by our psychical life.

I wasn't attempting to (start a new thread) and explain the origins of our spirit. I also disagree that a PET scan would ONLY reveal the effect of our spirit *acting on* our body, but think that ANY diagnostic test for the mind tests the *two-way* interaction of the physical and spiritual.

Lastly, regarding

(I have a degree and a Ph.D. in physics and I am author of several papers on the most important journals of physics; if you want to context my statements you must give me the proof of your scientific knowledges)

I have two objections here. The first is what in English is called the fallacy of "appeal to authority". It's use is (for example) to show a professional football player selling a brand of Orange juice. The implication is that because we *know* the football player is great at football, he must also know a great deal about what constitutes the best orange juice, when in fact he may not know *anything* about orange juice. Similarly, were I to follow up on any references you may give and find you a published Ph.D. physicist, it still wouldn't make you a *knowledgeable* psychologist or theologian -- your statements in these areas need to be backed up like anyone else's, even if I *knew* you were knowledgeable in physics.

Secondly, from a Christian perspective, isn't demanding that someone meet your expectations before you discuss something with them doing what some of Christ's enemies did? For this board, you might want to follow the example of someone who dined with the tax collectors.

As an additional third, my profession demands of me that I not have personal opinions in some areas. As I post on a variety of boards, one or two of them might be considered inappropriate for someone in my position. I don't KNOW that this is true, but don't want to find out the hard way that I was mistaken. My posting should tell you whether or not I'm knowledgeable on the subject I'm posting on, *regardless* of what I *claim* to be proficient in. Conversely, if someone is wrong, they are wrong *regardless* of what their credentials are.

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 22, 2001.


>>>But a definition of intelligence can be proposed, and debated as to whether or not it is appropriate. After that it can be seen whether or not the "unconscious" fits this definition. To state that the unconscioius *is* intelligent with out backing that statement up does not withstand *this* peer's review.

Frank,

I think that in my previous post I have explained clearly my concept of unconscious, including the meaning of unconscious intelligence. In order to clarify, let me state them here. I think that our unconscious has the same kind of intelligence that we have at the conscious level. I have in fact explained that it is our unconscious who is responsible for our capacity to learn to speak, which implies that our unconscious can understand also abstract concepts. Our unconscious has desires, fears, feelings as we have at the conscious level.

>>>>Marco, what I was trying to say here is that a person is composed of a spiritual self, and a physical self, and that in total we are greater than our physical self, but that the expression of our spirits ARE to some degree limited by physical constraints, do you disagree with this (using my low-blood glucose example, for instance)?

Of course we are limited by our physical constraints ; the point is that our physical constraints are not the cause of our psychical life. Modern science cannot explain the existence of the psychical life. Our psychical life is then a supernatural fact, and consequently also the interaction between our psyche and our body is a supernatural fact.

I wrote : Our psychical capabilities cannot be explained from the equations of physics, and they must then be considered intrinsically supernatural.

You replied : I don't believe this is true. The *expression* of our spiritual selves is indeed altered by our physical bodies.

The fact that our psychical life is affected by our physical body is a well known fact, but the point is that the equations of physics can explain neither the existence of our psychical life nor the mechanisms through which the our psychical life is affected by our physical body. This is not my opinion ; this is the present status of science. I use the word "supernatural" to indicate every fact which cannot be explained by science or that it is in contraddiction with our scientific knowledges; with this definition, our psychical life is supernatural because it is in contraddiction with our scientific knowledge which proves that our brain is made only of interacting electrons, protons and neutrons and because the equaions of physics cannot explain the existence of our psychical life.

>>> The point I was trying to make here is that at different levels, different frames of reference are appropriate. The carbon atom behaves identically in both a rock or a cell -- as a carbon atom, but cells don't behave like rocks. They reproduce, etc. The properties of the *whole* are different even if the individual units act identically, and in fact are interchangeable.

Completely wrong. The equations of physics are universally valid and they can explain every properties of both cells and atoms. The reproduction of cells can be explained through the equations of physics ; in fact the reproduction of cells is only a consequence of chemical reactions, which in their turn are only a consequence of the electromagnetic interaction among the electrons. The equations of physics explain every property of living organisms, including growth, reproduction, etc. ; every property except our psychical life. Again, this is not my opinion ; this is the present status of science. >>>>I have two objections here. The first is what in English is called the fallacy of "appeal to authority". It's use is (for example) to show a professional football player selling a brand of Orange juice. The implication is that because we *know* the football player is great at football, he must also know a great deal about what constitutes the best orange juice, when in fact he may not know *anything* about orange juice. Similarly, were I to follow up on any references you may give and find you a published Ph.D. physicist, it still wouldn't make you a *knowledgeable* psychologist or theologian -- your statements in these areas need to be backed up like anyone else's, even if I *knew* you were knowledgeable in physics.

You can certainly disagree with my theologic or psychologic thesis. What I meant is that you cannot context my statements about the fact the science cannot explain the existence of our psychical life, because only a person who knows very well the present status of the scientific knowledges can express an opinion about science. I understand that you are not a scientist ; you are free to have your opinions, but you cannot say that your opinions are based on scientific results, because you do not have the sufficient scientific knowledges to express a scientific opinion. For example, you cannot give a scientific interpretation of Pet scans.

>>>Secondly, from a Christian perspective, isn't demanding that someone meet your expectations before you discuss something with them doing what some of Christ's enemies did? For this board, you might want to follow the example of someone who dined with the tax collectors.

I do not understand what you mean here (maybe it’s because of my english)



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 23, 2001.


Marco,

I have in fact explained that it is our unconscious who is responsible for our capacity to learn to speak, which implies that our unconscious can understand also abstract concepts.

I know this is what you've stated you *believe* to be the case, but other than saying "this has been proven" you have NOT given any evidence that this is the case. Why for example do you believe that our unconscious is responsible for our ability to learn language INDEPENDENTLY of our conscious mind? That itself is a very large assertion, and needs to be proven before accepted. My reason for harping on this is that I believe you are giving powers to the unconscious that do not exist, and so making a theological argument on an incorrect premise.

with this definition, our psychical life is supernatural because it is in contraddiction with our scientific knowledge which proves that our brain is made only of interacting electrons, protons and neutrons and because the equaions of physics cannot explain the existence of our psychical life.

>>> The point I was trying to make here is that at different levels, different frames of reference are appropriate. The carbon atom behaves identically in both a rock or a cell -- as a carbon atom, but cells don't behave like rocks. They reproduce, etc. The properties of the *whole* are different even if the individual units act identically, and in fact are interchangeable.

Completely wrong. The equations of physics are universally valid and they can explain every properties of both cells and atoms.

Marco,

From your responses to both these questions, I think you did not understand the point I was trying to make. The components of a rock or a human at the atomic level do indeed act the same, following their natures. The SUM of the effects of a rock though do NOT equal the sum of the effects in a man. Why not? Because man does indeed have a spiritual component. I also think that by limiting yourself to the level of the atom (or sub-atomic levels) to explain nature, you are not going to see the importance of the physical interaction with the spiritual. How can one atom covet (or murder) another? They are all the same. There is more to life than reducing things to their elements, if you do you miss what is implied by the whole. As an example, we don't hold someone with brain damage accountable to the same level as someone whose brain is intact, as they are not able to reason normally. Do you think that someone whose physical brain is damaged means their soul is damaged too? If not, you must accept that the body is not just an "identical" vessel to transport the spirit, but at this phase of our existance an integral part of it.

What I meant is that you cannot context my statements about the fact the science cannot explain the existence of our psychical life, because only a person who knows very well the present status of the scientific knowledges can express an opinion about science. I understand that you are not a scientist ;

I have not stated my profession Marco, I have explained the reason why. Please don't make assumptions that may be inaccurate.

For example, you cannot give a scientific interpretation of Pet scans.

I have not stated my profession Marco, I have explained the reason why. Please don't make assumptions that may be inaccurate.

>>>Secondly, from a Christian perspective, isn't demanding that someone meet your expectations before you discuss something with them doing what some of Christ's enemies did? For this board, you might want to follow the example of someone who dined with the tax collectors.

I do not understand what you mean here (maybe it’s because of my english)

What I meant was that Christ tried to speak with everyone, regardless of who they were. Many Jews who did not turn to Jesus did so because of who he was, Joseph's son, a poor man who didn't *appear* to be the conquering hero they expected the Messiah to be.

Also, for a non-native speaker of English, I find your use of English to be excellent.

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2001.


>>>I know this is what you've stated you *believe* to be the case, but other than saying "this has been proven" you have NOT given any evidence that this is the case. Why for example do you believe that our unconscious is responsible for our ability to learn language INDEPENDENTLY of our conscious mind? That itself is a very large assertion, and needs to be proven before accepted.

Frank,

the fact that our unconscious is responsible for our ability to learn a language independently from our conscious mind is for me very evident; in fact, a little child (3-4 years) is able to speak correctly, even if he has no conscious idea of grammatical rules (italian has a much more complicated grammar than english). Grammatical rules implies abstract concepts, which have been understood unconsciously by the child. Many children have difficulties to learn these grammatical rules when they study them at school (which happens only many years later). Nevertheless they are able to use these rules because they have unconsciously understood them. This reasoning represents for me a sufficient proof. Many other arguments can be given and many examples of an intelligent activity of our unconscious can be found in psychologic litterature. In my daily life I often see the effects of my unconscious intelligence. However, I am not trying to convince you. You are certainly free to keep your opinions. As I have said, I do not think that a theological thesis can be proved because theology is not mahematics.

>>>>From your responses to both these questions, I think you did not understand the point I was trying to make. The components of a rock or a human at the atomic level do indeed act the same, following their natures. The SUM of the effects of a rock though do NOT equal the sum of the effects in a man. Why not? Because man does indeed have a spiritual component.

This is exactly what I was saying; the existence of our psychical life (that is our spiritual component) cannot be explained from a scientific point of view, because from a physical point we are only interacting particles.

>>>I also think that by limiting yourself to the level of the atom (or sub-atomic levels) to explain nature, you are not going to see the importance of the physical interaction with the spiritual.

I strongly disagree. Physics explains perfectly nature. The point is that our psychical life (the spiritual component) is a supernatural fact. It is intrinsically impossible for science to explain a supernatural fact. Do you think that science can explain the moltiplication of the loaves of bread or Jesus' resurrection?

>How can one atom covet (or murder) another?

No atom can covet; it is our psiche who covets, and our psiche is not our brain, but a separate component (the spiritual component) which interacts with our body.

>>>There is more to life than reducing things to their elements, if you do you miss what is implied by the whole.

I strongly disagree. In fact our psychical life is not originted by our brain, even if there is a (supernatural) interaction between psiche and brain. Our brain is only a sum of interacting particles. This is what science has proved.

>>>>As an example, we don't hold someone with brain damage accountable to the same level as someone whose brain is intact, as they are not able to reason normally. Do you think that someone whose physical brain is damaged means their soul is damaged too?

As I have said, there is an interaction between our psiche and our body; if there were no such interaction, we could feel no pain, no pleasure, etc. When we feel a strong pain or when we have the fever, we are not able to reason as in a normal situation. This is because our psiche receives the effects of the alteration of our body. The same can be said for a damage to our brain.

>>>If not, you must accept that the body is not just an "identical" vessel to transport the spirit, but at this phase of our existance an integral part of it.

I strongly disagree and I think that your ideas are in contraddiction with our scientific knowledges. As I have said, our psiche interacts with our body (including our brain); this interaction implies that our psiche is affected by the alterations of our body (including our brain). However, our psychical life is not originated by our brain, which is only a set of interacting particles. You are free to keep your opinions, but you should be aware that your opinions are in contraddiction with our scientific knowledges.



-- marcobiagini (bbc@tsc4.com), January 24, 2001.


How do I know when God's Spirit has come into me. Could you help me with this...provide some scriptural reference please.

Joe

-- Joe Crow (joecrow1978@hotmail.com), December 06, 2001.


Dear Joe:
You know it by faith. The Holy Spirit is our soul's holiness and the evidence we have is His grace. All impulses to love and serve God are from Him. He is, however silent.

If you wish to learn this scripturally, go through all the New Testament scriptures. Why should we expect one particular verse to let you know this? In every verse of every chapter, the Holy Spirit will be speaking to you, and shedding His grace on you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 06, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ