Tags
One of the things he said yesterday was that there is no use our pretending that in some way acts of sin are not acts of our will. However we dress it up, he said, whenever we sin e make a choice to do that. We could decide not to sin, but e decide the opposite. That challenges the way many of us approach this. How often have you heard yourself, or someone else, talk about sin as though you had no choice?
For my own reasons, I am highly sensitive to the notion that men get an overwhelming temptation to go to bed with women they are not married to. Such men tend to talk about it being ‘natural’. I agree. Although not experienced at all in the ways of men, I can quite see it is natural for them to wish to go to bed with lots of women. Being somewhat old-fashioned, it is not natural for me to want to do the same. As I was saying to Father, this is part and parcel of the spectrum of ‘natural behaviour’ which is actually sinful.
We tend, as a species, to argue as though the fact that something is ‘natural’ is to excuse it. I don’t know anything much about homosexuality, but abhorrent though the idea is to me, I am quite happy to accept that to some people it is ‘natural’; so is adultery and fornication. But God tells us these things are wrong.
They are, like so much else we do wrong, the product of our fallen nature. Once we accept that our nature is fallen, we can no longer accept that the fact that something comes naturally to us is an excuse.
It is here that the idea that in some way Christianity is a panacea or something which makes life easy goes astray. Our Faith tells us that many of the things we might like to do are wrong. Our fallen nature tells us that much pleasure is to be had down many such paths, and as our society as a whole shows us, that is a seductive argument. What could be more ‘natural’ than to give in to the urge to go to bed with an attractive person who shows an interest in you? Am I married, is he? Well, if we don’t tell anyone, here’s the harm? Oh yes, the argument, like all of Satan’s arguments, is seductive enough – and it goes with the grain of our desires.
But we fool only ourselves, as Father said, if we fall for the line that in some way we fell into sin. We made a choice, We decided, willingly, that we would do something we know to be wrong. It wasn’t ‘society’, it wasn’t anything except an act of will. But if we can choose to act, the good news is that we can choose not to act. The question of why we don’t make that choice more often is one we all need to address.
Of course it’s natural, that is hardly an excuse, so is eating your dog, or your seed corn, when you’re to tired to hunt supper.
Religion, morality, and honor all require us to do the harder right instead of the easier wrong. We’re supposed to be wise enough to plan for the long term, instead of merely riding the torrent and trying to keep our head above water.
That’s what separates mankind, made in the image of God, from animals. who don’t have the self awareness to know the difference.
Too true, dearest friend.
xx
It is, and it’s also blindingly obvious, although many can’t seem to see it.
xx
Quite so, dearest friend
xx
Which is quite sad.
xx
How are humans made in the image of God? Not physically of course, as why would God have breathing apparatus, a digestive system, genitals, legs etc. etc.? So then it must mean that our minds are made in the image of God. But there again we are faced with the same issues: why would God possess the behavioural traits that we share with other animals – those which are a product of evolution through natural selection – such as sexual desires and obsessions, anger, jealousy, envy, innate fears? Other apes have been shown to be self aware, and so must also possess a degree free will – they also display great affection for their kin.
Karif – I’m not quite sure what you are asking. Spiritually we are made in the image of God, but that image has been obscured by sin.
Jessicahof, I’m asking in what way are we made in the image of God, considering the points I have raised?
Spiritually we are made in God’s image.
In what way?
We are flesh and spirit, it is our spirit which is made in God’s image.
So, if we don’t look like God, or behave like God, think, or feel, or sense our surroundings like God, but somehow our “spirit” is in the image of God, that is not being made in the image of God, is it?
Anyway, in what way is our ‘spirit’ in the image of God?
Yes it is. Why do you have such a problem with the obvious?
What is obvious? How is our ‘spirit’ in the image of God?
If the only part of us that is in the image of God is our ‘spirit’, how is it that we are made in the image of God? It makes no sense.
My co author, Chalcedon, has just offered this response to your questions:
“We know we are created in God’s image because the Bible tells us so in Genesis 1:27 where we read, “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Now, this event happened before the fall of man, but we know that we are still in some sense created in the image of God because 1 Corinthians 11:7 reaffirms this fact. Also Genesis 9:6 imposes the death penalty because of the fact that man is made in the image of God. This would argue that the idea of being created in God’s image still applies to us today.
The words “image” and “likeness” used in Genesis 1:26-27 express the idea of the whole man being created in this way. In some sense, both a man’s material and immaterial aspects are included in this assessment. Now, we know that strictly speaking man’s physical body is not patterned after the physical appearance of God. We are taught in John 4 that God is Spirit and does not reside in a physical body. However, this does not preclude the physical body being some part of the image of God. We exist currently as body and soul together. It is meaningless to talk of us a just a soul or just a body when we are alive on earth. Both are intricately intertwined to make you the person you are.
The body reflects God’s image by first of all being one in substance. God as a trinity is one being, acting with as much unity as our soul acts with our body. Our bodies are living, and Paul emphasizes that we serve a living God, not one of gold or silver or stone (Act17:29). In fact he says that those idols cannot be God because it would take a living being to create us as living beings. This is a highly rational argument, and difficult to find objectionable.
Paul’s ability to appeal to reason demonstrates another way that man is made in the image of God. God by His nature is a rational being. He operates by the laws of logic. He is not constrained by them because they are some kind of “higher force”, but they are the natural outflow of His will; they are His nature. He is as much a rational being as He is a loving being. Because only man has the true capacity for rational thinking, he is in this way also made in God’s image. Also, man is intelligent; aware of his surroundings and capable of changing them. He does not act on instinct, but should be able to control his natural drives for higher purposes.
God has given man free will, which likewise reflects God’s image. Every man has the ability to choose for himself his actions. He is morally aware. Man understands that certain things are good and certain things are evil. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had no experiential knowledge of good and evil, but they most certainly understood that they should obey God’s commands. If this were not so, God warning them about punishment if they disobeyed Him would have no meaning to them, and the fall could be viewed as entrapment on God’s part. Adam most certainly did understand that disobeying the will of God was wrong, and there could be dire consequences to his actions. Although we now must struggle against our evil nature to obey God, we still have moral understanding and comprehension of good and evil.
Lastly, one of the ways the image of God manifests itself in man is that only man can be aware of God and is capable of fellowshipping with Him. This part of man was exercised freely in the Garden before the fall. All men still are able to comprehend God’s existence, but none are able to fellowship with Him unless they have been born again in Christ. Obviously, the universality of religion shows that awareness of God and some need for a relationship with Him is common to man.
Your question has the implication that those people who have mental or physical deficiencies are somehow not created in the image of God. I find that this is not true. Because some of the aspects we associate with God’s image may not be operating properly, it doesn’t mean the person is devoid of God’s image. Rather, it shows that the image is somehow skewed or distorted. I liken this to an analogy of a car being made in a certain likeness (such as the body style of a corvette). When it is wrecked, the damage does not nullify the idea of being formed in that likeness, but shows the image as defective and in need of repair. Every person who is aware, no matter how slight his mental faculties, lives by some ethic, some moral code, and some decision-making processes. This re-emphasizes importance of our Redeemer’s work in the lives of men, for only He can create a heart in man that is not distorted and seeks His will.”
He’s also asked me to point you here:
http://www.catholicsociety.com/documents/other-documents/Image_and_Likeness_of_God.pdf
It seems strange to me that you didn’t refer to the fact that, as with other animals, human nature developed through the process we now know as ‘Natural Selection’.
Like you say, we have the ability (self awareness, knowledge, etc.) to choose not to led by instinctive behavioural traits, but so many of us are given very poor and mentors and cultural influences.
Cripes, didn’t see this — are you bored enough with refusing to listen to the answers that have been given to you for this question ad nauseam elsewhere, so that you need to go and refuse to listen to people in other forums instead ?
How difficult, exactly, is it for you to understand that the basic and underlying questions about the animal nature of mankind have formed a basic underpinning of philosophy since the Dawn of History ?
Your pretenses that these are new ideas that have never been dealt with ever before are tiresome, pointless, and boring.
Then answer my questions jabba, instead of dodging them. Then I’ll listen.
1. “the basic and underlying questions about the animal nature of mankind have formed a basic underpinning of philosophy since the Dawn of History ?” Where in pre Darwin philosophy is it suggested that human nature is the product of evolution by the process now known as natural selection?
2. In what sense are we made in the image of God?
answer my questions jabba … Then I’ll listen
I wish that were true …
That’s a very protestant view of the nature of sin –
In Catholicism, sin includes all of our harmful qualities, active and passive, willful and ignorant, deliberate or accidental, natural or contrived.
Whether we are the origin of the harm, or its sufferers.
Your point is valid, although it is easier to talk about sins of commission rather than sin of omission, which is why I think Jess chose her example.
I fail to see how it could be considered a protestant view however, our view of sin is exactly the same as the catholic one.
That actually sounds rather Calvinist to me Jabba.
No, it’s a paraphrase of the doctrines of Original and Particular sin, dear Jessica — but I do rather object to your implicit claim that acts of sin are willful by nature.
Not so.
They are harmful by nature.
They are harmful, certainly, but we will them Jabba – if we don’t, who does?
Picking up Jess’s point, if we don’t will them, it would certainly become Calvinistic and a very strong support for predestination.
But we do, we are sentient creatures.
??
I never said anything about not willing them — Pope John Paul II had something profound to say in his comments on the “matrix of sin” that constitutes a part of our environment.
But it’s hard to see that our Original Sin should be willed by us individually.
Your notions of predestination also do not follow from what I said !
Nothing that I said has at any point denied the action of our Free Will in those sins that we partake in deliberately.
Having inherited concupiscence from our first parents fall, human nature has been tainted by our attraction to separate ourselves from our divinely created human nature and therefore God Himself. We wish to be gods and deny a divine human nature which Christ assumed and lived according to its original purpose. Mary, being conceived without sin, shows us how life, of purely human nature, can live in one accord with our God and return the holiness that our nature was intended for. One must believe in this gift first or we will never exercise our will to bring our human nature into conformity with the purpose and dignity that is what we call human nature.
Thank you so much, dear friend. I totally agree.
Still getting used to my new computer, Jess, but will try to take a minute or two to comment from time to time.
Glad it is going well
xx
It is amazing how much stuff needs to be transferred or discarded from 2 separate PC’s. I know that as soon as I throw them out, I’m going to wish I saved even more. I put a bunch of stuff on flash memory just in case. So we’re getting there, slowly but surely.
xx
I suppose I should note here that when changing machines, I’m inclined to transfer every data file somewhere-here we use our server, and bring it back as needed, saves some distress, although it can be clunky, also has to do with why we use Chrome a lot.
If it’s Windows, try the Easy Transfer Wizard …
As do I, my friend.
Thanks Neo.
No problem, SF, when you’re right, you’re right, and it’s churlish not to say so.
I hate being churlish. Being polite is so much easier.
Indeed it is!!
Dear me! Sin is now a quaint anachronism, a boogie for the old and out-of-date. The old ‘informed consent to a moral wrong’ sort of thing requires an objective morality that cannot exist with moral relativism, right? Seductive, indeed…absolution in advance, no limit, no qualifications. What’s not to like? Of course, our society is increasingly violent and corrupt, as is our government and it’s getting so you don’t automatically trust folk you don’t know, but that’s a completely different subject, isn’t it? Just like all those kids ‘raised’ in single parent or essentially parentless households, kids with bleak prospects for much of a life, who don’t know how to relate to others. “Sin” means little to them, either.
If I recall, the wages of sin is about the same as the wages of willful stupidity. I’m afraid we’re going to see a lot of such for a long time before recovering a generally accepted, meaningful morality again. That’s always been the pattern during these sorts of times, hasn’t it?