I have been asked this question many times and have a completely different take on the subject than those who ask that question of me. I believe it is essential to understand the Fall of Adam and Eve, before we can understand the Need for a Redeemer! Any thoughts?

Lookbeyond, being saved generally means saved from the consequences of sin, which is eternal separation from God: Hell. Yes, it does imply a fall from grace by our human ancestors. And to be truly saved from the conseqences of sin, one must be saved from sin as well. This is accomplished through our union with Christ, who is God incarnate, the One in and through Whom God is transforming the human race through the gift of the Spirit Who is given by Christ.

Phil

I think Phil explained rather well (as if I'd know) the technical (if I may call it such) definitions of being saved. The practical everyday consequences are replacing chaos in one's life with purpose; replacing a lack of hope with the prospects of a brighter tomorrow; and replacing anger and despair with love and compassion. What would be the purpose of being saved if it was only to play a bit part in some long-ago drama?

I'm afraid I'm a bit of an egalitarian when it comes to the Adam & Eve story. They had their relationship with God and we have our own and I don't feel bound to making up for their screw-ups. I think the story is simply symbolic of the fact that, as humans, we are imperfect and prone to doing bad things, which is the consequence of having free will.

replacing chaos in one's life with purpose; replacing a lack of hope with the prospects of a brighter tomorrow; and replacing anger and despair with love and compassion.

I'm glad you added that last part, because otherwise people like Hitler, Stalin, and bin Laden could be said to have been working toward the same goals of purpose and a brighter future. There does need to be an ethical dimension to salvation, as Jesus himself emphasized most strongly.

They had their relationship with God and we have our own and I don't feel bound to making up for their screw-ups. I think the story is simply symbolic of the fact that, as humans, we are imperfect and prone to doing bad things, which is the consequence of having free will.

Yes. And it's also a recognition of how one person's screw-up affects us all in some ways. It's that "prone to doing bad things" part of your statement that has prompted reflection on why that is so. That's what the teaching about the Fall and Original Sin are addressing.

Good thread.

Chris

"replacing chaos in one's life with purpose; replacing a lack of hope with the prospects of a brighter tomorrow; and replacing anger and despair with love and compassion."

Absolutely! Being saved is realizing that we are loved despite of who we are. Understanding that we are loved as we are enables to better love others as they are. Once we begin living within this love our anger is replaced by love and compassion and our despair with joy.

Lent is a good time to acknowledge who we are - to take a long hard look at all our warts and then turn to our Saviour and let ourselves be loved so that we in turn can better love others.

Happy Valentines Day!
Wanda

Being saved from sin....I really don't see anyone who does not face sin in everyday life! We are in the midst of sin all around us and are prodded constantly to make choices, good, better and best choices and often bad choices....
<<They had their relationship with God and we have our own and I don't feel bound to making up for their
screw-ups. I think the story is simply symbolic of the fact that, as humans, we are imperfect and prone to
doing bad things, which is the consequence of having free will.>>

The symbolism found in the Garden of Eden is not without merit and meditation! Adam and Eve were immortal when placed there.......given two commandments! One to multiply and replenish the earth. The second, that they should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, nevertheless, they could choose for themselves, but the consequence would be death......or they would be come mortal, their bodies being "corruptable" and would eventually go to the grave. Our consequence for their "screw-ups" is without choice on our part...we all will physically die! When Adam & Eve were cast from the Garden, out of the presence of God, we likewise suffer....we do not stand in the presence of Diety today because of the consequence of broken law. However herein is why the need for a Redeemer, or Savior of mankind......without the atonement of Jesus Christ who agreed to be our Mediator between us and God the Father, all mankind would be lost and be forever in the grave...but Christ died upon the cross to satisfy the demands of justice! As in Adam all must die, even so, in Christ shall all be made alive. Christ conquered death or the grave....we will ALL be resurrected! To regain the presence of Diety, as was enjoyed by Adam & Eve, Christ gave us His gospel, or a designed plan of salvation; a plan of happiness whereby we could regain His Spirit in our lives, as we follow and live His teachings, the light of Christ is then not with held from us and we can grow in knowledge and understanding of His purposes in purportion to how willing we are to be obedient to His commandments. They are the guidelines for mortality; for the happiness of man if followed! The salvation from the grave is a free gift to all; so is man's agency to choose for himself to believe, follow and embrace truth! Overcoming the "spiritual death" is our responsibility and can be conquered only as we make choices in harmony with the beautiful plan of happiness designed by a loving Father in Heaven for all of His children to receive of, if it is their choice!
As we are subject to the consequences of the Fall of Adam......so are we the benifactors of the Sacrifice of the Son of God, not by any choice of ours....we are resurrected from the dead by the grace of God! We will be held accountable for our choices in this life, and we all will stand before God and be judged. That God knew the value of opposition in our lives, is without question. He knows that as we conquer each stumbling block placed in our way we become stronger and more determined........hopefully it will be a determination to participate in the plan of happiness He has outlined for us......

Phil, <This is accomplished through our union with Christ, who is God incarnate, > Why is it so difficult to recognize Jesus Christ for who He is? Do not the scriptures repeatedly refer to Him as the only Begotten Son of the Father in the flesh? We have fathers of our flesh....they have sons.....they are separate entities, yet often are unified in purpose......(never teenagers ha ha) were we not created in the impage of the Father? Because of our heritage and family ties, there is a great deal of love, loyalty and bonding! A personal relationship! As I view and try to establish a personal relationship with God, my Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ, my Elder Brother, I feel a warmth and closeness to them because I am created in their image, as Jesus was the offspring of Divine heritage....His body made mortal and capable of death being born of a mortal Mother, gave Him power over death and He could willingly give up His life on the cross for the sins of the world, and I can relate better knowing my body is also mortal and subject to pain and death, enabling me to understand and appreciate the great love of God for His children, yet He was willing to sacrifice His Son, that all of His children might be saved....what a powerful love, a love I feel for my children and family ties, and likewise a great personal love for God and Jesus Christ, two separate and personable personages, not mystical essences....but tangible, warm and caring persons who have put on immortality as we shall one day!

I'm looking around for a good place to post this question, and hope this thread is it.
On the Kundalini board, QuiQui wrote:

>>That's no more profound than acknowledging what St. John of the Cross recognized: that not even in a state of mortal sin are we ever separated from God once considering that he supports our existence through immanent being>>

I've always wondered how this idea fits with the whole idea of sin as separation from God. I believe this question is becoming more critical in light of the pervasive new age assumption that everyone is intrinsically connected to God and that there is no real valid concept such as "sin". How do we distinguish to people between (1) God sustaining the universe and each individual person by his presence at all times (2) sin as separation from God that needs to be remedied? Thanks -- Lola

How do we distinguish to people between (1) God sustaining the universe and each individual person by his presence at all times (2) sin as separation from God that needs to be remedied?

Good questions!

For sure, there is always this ontological connection between the Creator and the creature--God's constant, ongoing gift of the grace of existence to the creature.

In the case of the human, the grace of existence includes potentialities for intelligence and freedom, which can be developed by the creature in a manner which maintains an awareness of ontological union, and, in addition, develops a relational union. Sin implies a use of intelligence and freedom which distorts the awareness of the creature away from these two unitive possibilities.

Does this make sense?

Phil

Hello everyone,

I may be way off base here but separation to me is not the same as being apart from but more a turning away from or shutting our eyes to. More of a perception thing than a physical thing.

A lot of stores play background music and when you first walk in you are aware of it.. you "hear" the music. After shopping for a very short time, you no longer hear it... it still plays, but you aren't consciously aware of it and forget it is even playing. You "tune it out".

I guess maybe you could say that sin is a willfull "tuning out"... a refusal to be aware, to see.

Just some muddled thoughts I thought I would share.

Happy St. Patrick's Day.. and no I have not been dipping into the green beer... the muddle is well.. just muddle.

Peace,
Wanda

Originally posted by Wanda:

I may be way off base here but separation to me is not the same as being apart from but more a turning away from or shutting our eyes to. More of a perception thing than a physical thing.

......I guess maybe you could say that sin is a willfull "tuning out"... a refusal to be aware, to see.

Hi Wanda,

Very good muddling...

How about the good old definition of sin as 'missing the mark'? Or, how about sin as the illusion of separation from God? A lot of revising needs to be done with definitions in this area. The old definitions are too geared to a relationship with an external deity only. What do you say?

No, I haven't been into the green beer either.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

tee

First, let me say that I am receptive to the basic point all three of you seem to be making. Partly because it solves the problem I posed -- how can we be sustained by God at all times and yet separated from him in some way that requires remedy? The answer seems to be: we aren't really separated -- for various reasons we just think we are. To fully experience life, we need to come to understand that we are actually connected to God.
Yet, I'm not finding this answer entirely satisfying. I guess I've believed that our separation from God is more than an "illusion of being separated" or "a choice to believe that I am separated" or something like that. Did Jesus die on the cross just to bring clarity to our perceptions -- or, to give us the ability to think clearly or to destroy our illusions? I've always sensed that there is some real gulf -- some ontological separation caused by sin. There's a definite difference between me thinking that my husband has left the house when he hasn't (an illusion) -- versus, my husband having actually left the house (a separation). Jesus when he took on sin (became sin) said, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
I am thinking this through and would like to hear more from you. Thanks -- Lola

You're right on, Lola, and if you check out my previous reply to you, I think you'll see that I'm not simply saying that " we aren't really separated -- for various reasons we just think we are."

Catholic theology is very firm in making a distinction between the kind of union we have with God by virtue of receiving the gift of existence from God, and the union which comes from relationship. What God creates is a creature capable of relationship, and what sin destroys is the relationship. Still, God doesn't stop creating the creature who lives in sin, and so this natural/existential union goes on even while the human experiences alienation from God. What we're alienated from is not simply the awareness of our natural union with God, which is indeed lost (original innocence, etc.), but our relational connection with God. This is lost because our noetic and volitional powers are damaged by sin--and that is indeed a consequence to our very being, which is essentially relational.

Does this help to clarify? Some of this has great relevance for our discussion of the crucifixion on the Lenten Forum.

Phil

Hi, Phil -- yes, I just came from the Lenten Forum and realized that all of this is verging together! Praise God for synergy!

Your distinction is definitely helpful and validates the idea of this I had been carrying. Your quote:

>>>>What we're alienated from is not simply the awareness of our natural union with God, which is indeed lost (original innocence, etc.), but our relational connection with God.>>>>

helped me see what is going on with some of my New Age associates. They have regained their sense of natural (creational) union with God. They have received enough light to break through the delusion of separation on this level (this delusion I guess could manifest as the kind of existential sense of self-sufficiency which scientists often have). So, it's definitely a step in the right direction relative to materialism or something like that. They know they are connected to God as source.
But their sense of relational separation from God is often quite weak. Which I suppose is why they refer to God so impersonally as some kind of cosmic "force", etc. In fact, I have found definite resistance to acknowledging God as a personal being. Perhaps because of the relational obligations or potential responsibilities or loss of self-will this might imply. Thanks for helping me get a clearer idea of what is going on with these friends -- Lola

P.S. Is this statement --

>>>Still, God doesn't stop creating the creature who lives in sin>>>

kind of like saying God gives rain to both the just and the unjust?

helped me see what is going on with some of my New Age associates. They have regained their sense of natural (creational) union with God.

That is, I think, a good way to understand what enlightenment is. You might check out some of the links on this web page by Jim Arraj to see how he treats enlightenment. Basically, it seems there are two large categories of mystical experiences: enligthenment and contemplation, the latter being relational.

They have received enough light to break through the delusion of separation on this level (this delusion I guess could manifest as the kind of existential sense of self-sufficiency which scientists often have).

Quite so. The unregenerate Ego often remains intact in some of those New Agey spiritualities, which are often very self-focused. You can even find addictions running rampant among some of their "masters."

So, it's definitely a step in the right direction relative to materialism or something like that. They know they are connected to God as source.

It is a step in the right direction, and when developed in a moral context, a very good step indeed--or can be.

But their sense of relational separation from God is often quite weak. Which I suppose is why they refer to God so impersonally as some kind of cosmic "force", etc.

Yes, their faith does not configure in them this receptivity to the divine as Person. But they do experience the consequences of sin as the anxiety and shame which plagues their nature--same as we all do.

In fact, I have found definite resistance to acknowledging God as a personal being. Perhaps because of the relational obligations or potential responsibilities or loss of self-will this might imply.

Maybe those are the reasons, but the "way" they proceed minimizes the role of individuality, will, and all those things which constitute us as persons. In proceeding through a non-relational pathway they discover reality to be impersonal, which shouldn't surprise anyone. You get what you're looking for, after all. But do we want what Christ wants to give us? His knowledge of God!

Phil

I'm Lutheran and we use the expression "God is Love" very much in my church. We are also taught that God is loving, merciful.

Well, to make what could turn into a long sermonette here short, does not anyone think like me in that all that is good and loving is from God and all that is evil from the devil? God never promised us the devil would inflict no harm i.e., bin laden. He did promise us salvation though...

I just didn't see anyone mention the true evil force in this world, such as it is and was sort of surprised at that...

Hi starlite, and welcome to the forum. Everything posted on the discussion board comes to me via email as well, and I see you've posted on a few other threads. Sometimes things get slow here, so if you don't have a reply or interaction right away, just hang in there. It'll eventually happen.

Well, to make what could turn into a long sermonette here short, does not anyone think like me in that all that is good and loving is from God and all that is evil from the devil?

Ultimately, I think that's true, although evil also has its roots in human nature. In other words, we don't need the devil to explain all evil; we're quite capable of a lot ourselves.

And yes, breaking the hold of evil in our nature and in the cosmos was accomplished by Christ in the crucifixion and is very much a part of what his salvation makes available to us.

Phil