I just think we're in danger of sanitising the gospel in accordance with liberal trends in society. I don't in any way advocate a return to Puritanism or have any interest in the fundamentalism prevalent in American Christianity. I simply maintain, in accordance with the Psalmist, in accordance with Christ Himself, that God's law is eternal and shall never pass away.

Good exchanges. . . and keep going. Part of what you're doing is recognizing different ways of understanding what Christ accomplished through his death, descent and resurrection. I've shared something on this topic at length in the Christian Mysteries series; you can link to it through its forum. We are reflecting on deep mysteries here, so I think there are many ways to approach and understand them.

I'll jump in on one point, and that concerns the idea of God and feelings. Granted the anthropomorphic dangers involved . . . nevertheless, I do believe there is a feeling dimension in God. I think that maybe the reason we feel is because, as images of God, God feels. Process theologians have reflected on this deeply and have explored the idea that God feels deeply what is going on in creation . . . grieves injustice, is angry with oppression, etc. We see all this going on in Jesus and it's hard to pass it off as only the human part of his nature responding. Something of divine delight, compassion, frustration and sadness breaks through at times as well. Recalling that in Christianity, we believe God is like Jesus rather than the other way around, I think we have a strong basis for believing in a feeling God. Mystics from other traditions -- like Paramahamsa Yogananda -- have affirmed the same based on their own experience.

What I don't believe about the feeling God is that this connotes the kind of judgmentalism that we generally move into with our emotional reactions. God can be disappointed, for example, without being rejecting, or even angry without closing off the relationship. I think there are times when God communicates His feeling to us to provoke a feeling response in us; Jesus does this all throughout the Gospels.

When the Scriptures speak of the wrath of God, then, I think it's referring to perceptions we come to based on projections out of our fear and shame, but there could also be something coming from God as well. God most unapologetically hates sin; Scripture is clear on this. So what would happen if, through empathic absorption, Christ became sin, as 2 Cor. maintains? (See the Christian Mysteries slides). How would God look upon such a victim? Surely, God wouldn't be completely duped into forgetting who is bearing the sin, and why . . . hence, the eventuality of the resurrection. Something to ponder . . . and wonder over . . .

Amen and on the same note...

http://www.americancatholic.or...er/aug2002/Bible.asp

Man made interperetations can fall short and the Father Heart of God is beyond imagination.

As Art Linkletter said, "Kids say the darndest things." I read a story today about a 2 1/2 year old who met her grandfather for the first time and looked up at him and said, "Be gentle."

"Be gentle with what?"

"With yourself."

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

w.c.

It occured to me last night in my dreams that, without retracting anything I've said, I should really be sharing in the joy you feel in finding God as Abba. It is a truly wonderful relationship.
He is a Father to the fatherless!

I also see God as the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the Ruler of heaven and earth and find that the various aspects of His Person revealed in these terms are equally thrilling and open up relational possibilities that are quite awesome. Christ's sacrifice gives us entrance into the divine court, into the heavenlies where God reigns in glorious majesty.(I love Daniel's vision of the heavenly court). Perhaps part of my insistance on God as judge relates to the sovereign authority I find He exercises there.

I'm reading a novel called "The Child in Time" by Ian McEwan, a wonderful English prose writer, about a father whose child is stolen from right under His nose. It led me to think about the joy in heaven whenever one of the lost ones is found. I think the Father takes delight in your finding Him.

w.c.

What then is your view of the Father's role at Calvary? I refer again to Isaiah 53:10,

"It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief."

And to Psalm 22,

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are You so far from helping?"

From these and more I see the Father taking an active role in the sufferings of Christ, a deliberate withdrawal of His presence, a deliberate paining of Christ which amounts to judgement for the sin He became. Ofcourse, He is not duped into forgetting who He was, but, in as much as it was the Father's will, scripture indicates that it was the Lord who put Him to death.

from w.c.: Hence grace penetrates the darkness completely, knows it thoroughly, and as Christ becomes separation (my view of original sin), the breach is healed, since Christ's light is everlasting and merged with His perfect human will in death.

Yes! It is the Father's rejection of sin that leads him to experience alienation from the Father and go the way of all sinners him to Sheol -- i.e., the realm of the separated. And way deep down in that realm of darkness, the Light of his inseparable bond with the Father finally shines forth, opening the way through this metaphysical cul-de-sac. From thence he can rise to new life, and sinners with him.

from Stephen: From these and more I see the Father taking an active role in the sufferings of Christ, a deliberate withdrawal of His presence, a deliberate paining of Christ which amounts to judgement for the sin He became. Ofcourse, He is not duped into forgetting who He was, but, in as much as it was the Father's will, scripture indicates that it was the Lord who put Him to death.

Does my pgh above seem faithful to this understanding, even if it doesn't emphasize a punitive motive?

I'm not really hearing a major conflict in views between w.c. and Stephen here, fwiw. Stephen seems to be emphasizing the Father's rejection of sin as consistent with God's purity and justice; w.c. seems to be attuned to the goodness of Abba, Jesus' trust in Abba, and psycho-spiritual dynamics unfolding during this time.

Christ's crucifixion is a great, muti-faceted mystery, opening us to many levels of revelation and meaning, I believe. I tried to explore several in my book, Jesus on the Cross: Why? and have since come to appreciate several new angles.

It's wonderful to think of the resurrection as "the Light of His inseparable bond with the father" shining forth. Equally to think of it as the triumph of Christ's moral glory over the sin that He took on.

Mirroring MM's reflection, is separation from God the same as original sin or does original sin lead to separation from God? My view tends to drift towards the latter based on the formula that disobedience leads to alienation. The opposite, alienation leading to disobedience, is impossible because God loves us. Therefore sin is an act of will, an act of disobedience, a rebellion. There doesn't seem to me to be any other explanation for separation that precludes God abandoning us. It's like: Free will - disobedience - sin - separation. Original sin isn't being separate, it is the choice to be separate.

As for any argument for or against a God who punishes His children, I throw in this quote from "The Child in Time":

"There (is) no richer field for speculation assertively dressed as fact than childcare."

quote:

I guess my cover is blown here a little bit, since I tend to think of Adam and Eve's disobedience as simply playing out the design of creation, as a story about individuation, its perils, and the need for the Cross so that individuation and union with God are fulfilled. Of course, they had a choice, but it was/is the choice of the child not yet matured, who rebels against the control of the parent and finds a scary and undpredicatable world awaiting him, who turns back to God, but never before again in the naivete of not knowing he is naked. This is just like a child losing his narcissistic power, his entitlement of being served at all times, and now must grow up to serve, to till the field himself.

w.c., as you probably know, the Jungians have made this point for some time, and the process philsophers have said something similar. Problem is (in terms of the Judeo-Christian tradition), the condition in which the first parents existed (as taught in traditional theology) was one in which ongoing growth in individuation, culture, etc. was also possible, and in a context of a state of natural beatitude. It's quite possible that God always planned to send the Christ, but to "upgrade" human consciousness yet another step when the time was right. After the fall, the mission became one of redemption and upgrading.

I know I'm often pointing to essays by Jim Arraj, but this one is superb in exploring different models that have been proposed in recent decades. As you'll see none of them adequately account for the reality of sin and evil quite so well as the traditional one. It's a thoroughly researched essay and worth inching through. I'll share his fantasy of human beginnings and original sin below:

I like to imagine a small band of hominids living somewhere in Africa some 50,000 years ago. These hominids, anatomically like modern humans, were much more intelligent than we might expect. They could make a variety of tools, had tamed fire, engaged in communal hunting, had a rudimentary type of communication, and so forth. They stood at the very threshold that separates true human beings from even the most intelligent hominids.

Then two children were born to this band, children who were the first true humans because God gave them spiritual souls. They would have been nurtured by their hominid parents, and would have learned the quasi-culture of the band, but they were truly different. In the depths of their spiritual souls flashed creative intuitions that lay at the roots of abstract language, art, innovative technology, and genuine self-consciousness and freedom, and an awareness of God. As these children grew, they soon outpaced their parents and were drawn to each other. They instinctively recognized each other as different from the rest of the band. They could look into each other�s eyes and see true self-awareness.

As their intuitions began to flower, they realized that they were being called by God to build a human community that would dwell in God�s presence. This calling could have taken place in the depths of their hearts without necessarily being accompanied by elaborate conscious conceptualizations. But they rejected this calling, and freely and knowingly turned away from God. They frustrated in its tenderest beginnings the role they were meant to play in transmitting both nature and grace to their descendants.

The conclusion of Experiment 3. The demise of the doctrine of original sin has been greatly exaggerated. Neither the sciences of nature nor historical criticism have demonstrated fundamental flaws in it. What has happened is that the sciences have created an atmosphere in which theologians felt compelled to reevaluate the doctrine of original sin, and so they often put aside the traditional formulations, but failed to come up with new ones that would truly express what is at its heart.

"God is always seeing the bigger picture, and only doing what His Son wills. Jesus didn't have to suffer. He could have stepped aside from the Cross, hence the drama of the Garden (the second Garden, which Adam and Eve couldn't bear in their undifferentiated wills, IMO)."

What then of Christ's plea: "Nevetheless not my will but thine be done" - a complete surrendering of His will to God's, and "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me" - Christ, in His despair, wishing the cross away but knowing that it is His purpose, knowing that it is impossible for the cross not to figure in His life?

Also, "God (doing) only what He could" to bring humanity to Him doesn't fully account for the depth of suffering that Christ went through and the Father's role and responsibility for that suffering.

Personally I find it impossible to talk about all this in terms of individuation and other psychotherapeutic concepts. Its just so far removed from what I see to be going on, too much of a twist on the theological approach which, I think, fully illuminates the Christian faith.

By the way, perhaps the Adam and Eve story represents a period of innocence and communion with God in early human experience, lasting for however long, until such time as disobedience crept in thus inducing the fall that spread to the whole of humanity.

And so Jesus could have sinned, or His life and redemptive action would have been pointless, or impossible ontologically. All along the way it was a question of his consenting to God, and not without a struggle. Catholic theologians don't locate sin in the emotions or the intellect, but in the will. And so Jesus' suffering was about His free will being offered over and over again to the Father for the sake of the world.

Once again overwhelmed and speachless. Phil, I appreciate you bringing Arraj back into it over and over again, as being rather thick and slow requires continual return to meditation on these truths and mysteries. Jung said that the Mass could penetrate the unconscious through it's many repetitions of the mysteries.

As far as sin residing in the will rather than the emotions or intellect, this is confirmed over and over again in my experience and through observing others. When the will lines up with God,
emotions and intellect and physical health tend to follow.

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

Off an a little tangent, Menninger describes
our current criminal justice system in the Whatever Became of Sin? book. 90% of these individuals are not violent. They make no contribution while warehoused in this manner and it is extremely expensive and wasteful in human and financial terms. Only China has more people locked up.

Menninger says that this state of affairs resulted from turning "sins" into "crimes" and seeking to punish rather than rehabilitate.
How would you imagine God feels about all these stinky, abusive social leper colonies?

caritas,

mm <*))))><

Glad you enjoyed the Arraj quote, Michael. He's razor sharp on this one, I believe.

from Stephen: By the way, perhaps the Adam and Eve story represents a period of innocence and communion with God in early human experience, lasting for however long, until such time as disobedience crept in thus inducing the fall that spread to the whole of humanity.

Ditto. See my post above, Stephen. I think we're saying the same thing.

A complete surrendering of His will to the Fathers would mean that His will would be in perfect alignment with the Fathers and since the Fathers will is perfect then Christ's will is perfect making it impossible for Him to sin.

w.c. you don't make sense to me. You say the Father was only doing the Son's will, then you seem to contradict that by talking about Christ surrendering His will. If you're not tangled up in knots then I certainly am. I don't see how Christ's life and redemptive action would be pointless unless He could have sinned. Where do you get that from?

I really don't want to go down that road. There are certain issues that are fixed in stone and one of them is Christ's sinlessness. Best if I drop out here. Suffice to say He could only have borne the guilt of the whole world if He was unaffected by it through sinless perfection and a nature that was free of the possiblity. If Christ is God, how can God sin, that's impossible. Simple as that.

The issue of Jesus being able to sin is one that's been debated through the centuries. I'll post a few links that go over both sides of the issue:

http://www.biblehelp.org/jesussin.htm
"I believe that when Jesus was tempted He had a real choice in His response. I believe that when He was tempted, He felt the same frustrations and pressures that we do. I believe He had a realistic choice to yield to His temptation. I believe that the temptations Jesus faced had the same potential of being overwhelming as they are to us. I believe that as a result, He could say to us, "I know what you are feeling; I went through the same thing."

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/20000527.htm
"The 'temptation of Christ' was not a farce - it was for real. Satan didn't try to get Jesus to sin because he knew that it wasn't possible, but because he knew that it was possible. The Messiah was tempted, truly tempted, but did not sin. He did for us what we cannot do for ourselves."

http://www.letusreason.org/Doct3.htm
"Could Jesus have sinned in his humanity while being God in the flesh. We need to understand that he was one person. If his humanity was separate it could have willed to do just as Adam did. While He had the choice to sin He did not have the ability. The humanity of Christ could never be separate from or unsupported from His deity. With Adam there was only one nature with Christ he was supported by and anointed by deity as the Son of God."

http://www.garnertedarmstrong..../could_jesus_sin.htm
"Christ was tempted. Therefore, He experienced desire in many directions, which, if He had followed those temptations to their ultimate conclusion in either thought or deed, He would have committed sin! But He overcame each temptation as it occurred! Did He do so easily, like a champion weightlifter, picking up a mere 20 pound weight?

"No, the Bible shows Christ had to WRESTLE with His own inclinations, that He had to STRUGGLE to overcome temptation!"

- and many other links - (do a google search for "Could Jesus have sinned")

-------

I see the pros and cons of both sides of the arguments, but I think the point about him being one person with two natures means that it would have been impossible for him to have sinned, as the divine nature that was an integral part of his personhood negated that possibility. Nevertheless, I think he fully experienced what it was like to be tempted--the feelings and pull were real, although in a man lacking the sinful inclinations that the rest of us are born with, and a divine nature that could not sin. He also experienced the full consequences of sin on the cross and so has the deepest personal understanding of sin that any human has ever known. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus knows the human condition completely, but that in him, we have a rock/bulwark against sin because he is divine.

Fwiw, I don't think those who argue that Christ could have sinned are detracting from what he has won for us. There's a sense in which his victory can be regarded as all the greater for having chosen as Adam did not. I don't know that this view is seriously heretical -- certainly not in spirit.

Phil:

It is actually easier, in one sense, to see Jesus in the way you describe, unless we imagine that His will was so infused with intimate awareness of the Father via His Divine Nature that its natural inclination, coupled with a human nature not fallen, would be surrender to what He knew most naturally. Whereas we, like Adam, are naturally inclined to separate our awareness from God just in the process of human development. This much is certainly our nature. And so Jesus' human nature during his human development was continually drawn into His Divine Nature as the primary influence in His choices. And so, at least at this point, I still see Jesus as having been capable of sinning, but without the inclination that we have. His Divine Nature wouldn't have negated the possibility of sin (His unfallen human nature still allowed this possibility), but generated an inclination to continual consent to the Father.

Could you nuance this a bit?

And my real concern is with how we view, and treat, ourselves via whatever understanding of Jesus we have. There is danger of a real heavy-handedness in seeing Him as incapable of having sinned. We could simply say He stands in for us, yet this often leads to our own perfectionism, rather than to humility. IOW, while we admit we sin, we have little contact with the humanity of Christ, who was so at home with "sinners," especially those who knew they had clay feet. He didn't like to see people shaming themselves, or trying to be perfect out of self-loathing, as was clearly the case with many of the religious of His day.

From all of this, so far, I get a clearer sense of how original sin is located in the will, the intention to be separate from God, which occurs just in our being born. And human development, which is development of our fallen nature, is naturally inclined to individuation. Yet who would say that individuation is a bad thing? as its malformation brings out some of the most destructive tendencies in our fallen nature. So the most maturely developed human being would have an increased sensitivity to fallenness, an awareness of his/her limited ability to live compassionately. The mistake would be to disengage from the individuating process out of some premature sense of spiritual obligation, rather than let it emerge from the growing awareness of one's existential crisis.

Could you nuance this a bit?

When do we get to the easy questions?

- I'll be out most of the rest of the day, but will get back to you. For now, let me say that your phrase, "we. like Adam, are naturally inclined to separate our awareness from God" needs more nuancing as well. Adam before the fall was not so naturally inclined to separation; his union with God constituted no obstacle to individuation, as we experience with our own growing union with God. Quite the contrary.

Meanwhile, there's a lot of meat on Arraj's web site, including a few good links discussing the nature of Jesus' consciousness on this page. The quote below provides a deep insight, I believe, into the nature of Jesus' consciousness.

The very person of the humanity of Jesus is the person of the Word, the second person of the Trinity, and so the human nature of Jesus does not find its ultimate center in itself but in the Word. This humanity is not taken up in any mechanical way as if it were some inert object. It is transformed by that assumption so that while it remains a human nature - so that there will be a genuine Incarnation - it is a human nature that takes on an enhanced way of being.
http://www.innerexplorations.c...tchtheomor/mind4.htm

"For now, let me say that your phrase, "we. like Adam, are naturally inclined to separate our awareness from God" needs more nuancing as well. Adam before the fall was not so naturally inclined to separation; his union with God constituted no obstacle to individuation, as we experience with our own growing union with God. Quite the contrary."

Yes, ok. pre-fallen Adam wasn't as inclined as we are, yet he clearly had some degree of inclination. Jesus had this same pre-fallen nature, and so my pondering leads to the idea of His Divine Nature absorbing the attention or awareness found in His human nature, making not sinning much easier than sinning. IOW, His creaturely tendencies were much less arousing, as they were taken up in their uncreated Source.

Interesting perspective, though: implied in what you're saying is that our separation from God actually inhibits our individuation. I guess we could say it is the nature of existential crisis: the realization we've come to the end of our search for meaning merely in terms of human faculties/experience. And, becoming more holy would lead to an individuality that isn't defined by ego, which is central to the merely moral, existential life.

BTW, there are no easy questions worth asking. Just ask JB . . . . . .

Phil and Stephen:

Here's an excerpt from Arraj that I think does the nuancing I'm concerned with:

http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/jc9.htm

"Once we have this instrument our dilemma begins to look more approachable. The human personality of Jesus is not limited to ego consciousness with the result that we are forced to choose either that Jesus was aware, or he was unaware of his divinity, or he was filled with grace, or was not. Instead, Maritain distinguishes in the humanity of Jesus between a "supraconscious of the spirit divinized by the Beatific Vision" (p. 55) and a human consciousness that embraces the ego, the infraconscious and the normal spiritual unconscious. This divinized supraconscious is unique to Christ and is not to be identified with the spiritual unconscious we all possess. Rather it is as if the deepest center or roots of Jesus' human soul, his spiritual unconscious, is transformed and elevated by becoming the humanity of the Word. This supraconscious escapes Jesus' normal consciousness, not because it is infraconscious but because of its excessive brilliance:

"Imagine that I am in a cellar and I am reading there a book by the light of a candle. To my left, beyond the circle of light of my candle, there is the darkness of the cellar, and if I place my book there I cannot distinguish anything in it, - this is for the infraconscious. And to my right there is a ray of the midday sun which, passing through a window and falling on the surface of some object in the cellar, makes there a zone of dazzling light. If I transfer my book there I can absolutely not read anything there either, I am dazzled by a brightness disproportionate to the strength of my eyes. This is for the divinized supraconscious." (p. 55, note 8)

"Jesus' consciousness exists in two different states. In his divinized supraconsciousness he was aware of his divine identity and he had a fullness of grace. But in what Maritain called his "terrestrial" or "crepuscular" consciousness into which the higher supraconceptual knowledge could not enter as such, he grew in age and in wisdom and in grace. This does not mean for Maritain that the "unconscious" of the divinized humanity of Jesus had no communication whatsoever with his human consciousness; although there was a "certain incommunicability" the separation between the two was a "translucid partition" which Jesus in his human consciousness could cross, but his supraconsciousness could only partially enter into a human consciousness founded on the working of the discursive mind. It is not a question of two ego consciousnesses, but one ego-awareness surrounded by various "unconscious" dimensions, and the divinized unconscious has more right to the title of the center of the soul than the ego itself. Maritain goes on to work out in considerable d tail and with appropriate theological nuances the relationship between these two states of consciousness, but his basic statement of the principle is enough for our purposes. Such an approach will allow us to begin to see how Jesus could feel the agony of abandonment if the supraconsciousness in which he was united to the Father became inaccessible to him at the time of the Passion. And there is no need to make the child Jesus in his child consciousness have all sorts of human knowledge so that his life with Mary and Joseph would be more a charade than a true time of learning."

And for me, the real gem:

"But what will happen if the human form becomes the human soul of a divine person? It will be, by that very fact, elevated and transformed in its depths which Maritain called the superconscious of the spirit, the light and gravitational pull of which will effect the rest of Jesus' psyche. The natural urge towards unity that the soul possesses will be intensified."

Does a fish know what water is? I belive Jesus was, as Paul believes him to be, the second Adam and
was swimming in it, but with a conciousness of sin and human suffering, something Adam got to experience but in his previous state had little or no consciousness of.

Jesus got to swim in the divine water as a sinless fish, and reunited both fish and water in a way that Adam could not and in doing so healed the human separation.

Everything the Christian mystics have done is an attempt at approaching and approximation and an imitation of this.

I sat up until 5 am with a new freind who is having a "k" experience (the photograph of his aura is the largest these particular photographers have seen so far,) and an old freind who just informed me of her breast cancer.

The presence of the "water" was so palpable that it was relatively easy to be with her in a
detached manner and talk about the fish experience at length.

Water used to be hard to find and it was a long crawl from one oasis to another. Then it began to rain alot and sometimes today I feel as though I am swimming, whatever is going on.

I'll never understand Christ's experience since
He is unique, but the taste of being both fish and water that I do have is plenty enough for a mere mortal.

great-full,

mm <*))))))><

Good exchanges, and yes, w.c., I see how those quotes speak to the issues you were raising.

And while we're speaking of water . . . . . . kind of reminds me of drinking alcohol. Take an alcoholic and tempt him with alcohol; the struggle with be very different than the experience of a non-alcoholic. I imagine Jesus' tempations to be along the lines of the latter -- there was no wound of Original Sin inclining him to self-destructive, separative behavior, so his resitance to temptation was as easy as the non-alcoholic's temptation to drink alcohol. This is not to minimize Jesus' temptations, nor to distance him from knowledge of the human experience. Remember -- he experienced the destructive power of sin more deeply and completely than did anyone who ever lived.

So take those quotes you shared, w.c., and at the end, add the one I shared at the top of this page, and I think we begin to get an idea of the uniqueness of Christ.

-----

btw, this thread title does little justice to the discussion that's developed. I wish I could tranfer individual posts to a new thread on the theme of what Jesus' crucifixion accomplished, but this software doesn't do that. Anyone have any suggestions on what we ought to do about this?

"This is not to minimize Jesus' temptations, nor to distance him from knowledge of the human experience. Remember -- he experienced the destructive power of sin more deeply and completely than did anyone who ever lived."


Interesting how only one not naturally drawn to sin could experience its full weight, or destructive effects.

So Phil, is it theologically correct, in Catholic terms, to define original sin as just the separateness of the creation from its Creator, as in its natural tendency to withdraw its will from that Presence and attempt to create its own meaning and happiness?

I began the thread with Neale Donald Walsh and his attempt to define the New Spirituality as an alternative to oppressive belief systems.

The question might be then just how to keep the Christian religion from becoming oppressive? How do you keep from throwing baby Jesus out with the dirty bathwater (oppression) or from throwing dirty water (syncretism) on the baby?

I saw a motion picture last night, The Magdelene Sisters, about an oppressive institution
in Ireland where 30,000 women did pennance for their "sins" by washing laundry and taking canings
from angry nuns.

You might call it an anti-religious film, but
the gospel message was mixed in there along with a great deal of shaming and guilting of the relative captives who were having it forced upon them.

I don't blame Walsh for feeling the need to move away from this, but is he moving toward anything better with his syncretism?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

It's a good thread-topic, Michael, and our meanderings are relevant to the general focus and concerns raised. Eventually, one is led to investigate some of the traditional teachings we've been reflecting on, as they're the main ones being called into question by people like Walsch. Same goes for the Peter Jennings thread. I guess anyone really interested in what we've talked about re. Original Sin and what was accomplished by the crucifixion can find their way to this discussion using the forum search.

from w.c. So Phil, is it theologically correct, in Catholic terms, to define original sin as just the separateness of the creation from its Creator, as in its natural tendency to withdraw its will from that Presence and attempt to create its own meaning and happiness?

"Separateness" can be of two kinds, as I see it--one ontological, the other existential (JB could probably nuance better). Ontological separateness would mean that God and a creature are really two different beings (as opposed to pantheism). This is not a bad thing as it's the only context in which true relationship is possible. The original intent was for human beings to know and develop in a context of profound intimacy with God, one another and creation, and so to become truly, authentically individuated ("loving unity differentiates"). By acting against this intent, the first parents committed the "original sin," the consequences of which have been passed on to the entire race owing to the fundamental unity of the race (Aquinas' ideas on form are relevant here) and the traditions we've developed that inculturated an anti-relational dynamic. The consequence to individual humans is a sense of "existential separateness," isolation, alienation, development of a false-self identity, and tendency to try to develop oneself in an exaggerated spirit of self-sufficiency. Existential separateness as I am describing it is, then, how we experience the consequences of the Original Sin and what many theologians actually call the evidence of Original Sin in our lives; but the Original Sin was the act of rebellion of the first parents.

What follows is a lengthy exerpt from Arraj's fine reflection on Original Sin found here. Good stuff, and more of it precedeing and following this quote. For those with more than an average interest in these matters . . .

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

"Sexuality is intimately connected with what Jung called the animus and anima, those deep archetypal dimensions of the psyche that express themselves in characteristics of the opposite sex. Here, too, we can expect a certain distortion has entered in because of original sin. Further, the whole trajectory of psychological development that Jung called the process of individuation, especially in terms of the fourth, or inferior, function, could have suffered distortions due to original sin. Thus we are faced with the difficult question of how to distinguish normal growth towards psychological integration from what might be the effects of a fallen and redeemed nature. We often act, for example, under the influence of the unconscious which clouds our rational judgment, and the archetypes of the unconscious understood as natural aspects of the soul, exist in a certain existential state generated by the fallen-redeemed world we live in, and so their influence might be more disruptive than it otherwise would be.


"At the root of our deepest intellectual and creative activity are certain intuitions that flash like heat lightning in the depths of the unconscious. These include the intuition of being that gives rise to metaphysics, and the creative intuitions that come to fruition in art and poetry. Is it not possible that these kinds of intuitions, including genuine religious ones, could have played a primordial role in the minds and hearts of the first humans? And could they not have been adversely affected by their turning away from God? Then it is possible to imagine that these intuitions would have become more obscure and distant to us, and would only make their way into consciousness and find adequate expression there with considerably more difficulty. But the disruption wrought by original sin would have fallen most heavily on the relationship the first humans had with God even if much of this relationship were to be conceived as a virtual one, waiting on their acceptance of God�s offer of grace.162 This is a relationship in which a supernatural contemplation of God would likely have played a central role. It would have formed the central axis which held the various energies of the soul in their proper places and bound them together into a harmonious whole. Without it, they would tend to seek their own goals irregardless of the goal of the whole person.

"Just how deeply rooted in the depths of our souls are the effects of original sin and the subsequent history of sin? When John of the Cross is describing the journey of the soul to God, he gives a central place in it to what he calls the dark night of sense, and the dark night of spirit. He tells us that it is the very dawning of the soul�s union with God that illuminates the stains and distortions within it. It would be possible, I think, to read his detailed and often horrific descriptions of these nights in the light of the damage done to the soul in its depths by original sin.

"The effects of original sin and all sins are social, as well. We literally cannot exist physically, psychologically, intellectually or spiritually outside of the human community. We are members of the one human race that gives birth to us, and all our actions for good or for ill reverberate throughout this community. The actions of the first humans had a devastating impact on all their descendants because they stood at the very beginning, and had the task of transmitting both nature and grace. But we, too, in a lesser way, are meant to transmit nature and grace to all those around us and who will come after us, and the effects of our bad actions are transmitted to them, as well. We have an instinctive understanding of this. We realize how powerfully we have been impacted for both good and for evil by those around us, and even those far distant from us in space and time. But what I want to focus on is the embodiment of these influences in our social structures. These structures are natural and normal expressions of our social natures. We create schools, hospitals, corporations, and so forth, but they, too, have a dimension that can be seen as a result of original sin and subsequent sins. They take on, for example, a certain life of their own, and can even lose sight of the very purposes for which they were created. Then we have schools that extinguish the love of learning, hospitals that spread disease, and corporations that wrench the pursuit of profit out of a truly human context.

"The point of these examples of the possible impacts caused by original sin and subsequent sins is not to push us into a pessimism that sees sin behind every tree and under every bush. Each of these areas has a progressive and salvific side. We do not just live in a fallen world, but a fallen-redeemed one. The nights of St. John of the Cross are nights because they lead to divine union. The passion of Jesus and his death ends in the resurrection. The distortions of our souls and social structures, however powerful, need to be seen in the context of the greater power of the grace of Christ. But if we learn to see the world through the optic of original sin, then perhaps we can learn to act in a more determined manner to remedy some of these ills."

Thanks for the above quotes w.c. and Phil and for the discussion as a whole. It certainly got me going.

Have a look at this passage from Colossians 1:19,20 -

"For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,
and by Him to reconcile(good word, w.c.) all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross."

Later too it says: "For in Him all the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily."

How can this be fully comprehended?!

God manifest in the flesh is a bit of a mystery and to retain the wonder of it all, it should remain so.

The preceding verses from 15-18 are worth a look too as regards Christ's position in the universe.

Another key verse in establishing the nature of Christ's sacrifice, which, consequently, opens a window on the divine nature itself is: "righteousness and peace have kissed one another." (Sorry, I think it's from the Psalms, can't quite recall.)

This, coupled with Paul's teachings on the righteousness of God at the start of Romans seem to indicate the need for some sort of judicial procedure in dealing with sin, a judicial procedure which indicates God's judicial qualities. The fact that God is dealing with it in His incarnate form is evidence enough of the grace involved. God is seen as the wise, righteous and gracious judge. So then, the ultimate penalty/wage of sin is death. That is its natural outcome. Thus, by dying on the cross, Christ is paying the penalty. Also important that His blood was shed, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. The life of the flesh is in the blood. We're dealing with pretty earthy stuff here, aswell as super spiritual truths. And I maintain that Christ's sacrifice effects both reconciliation AND righteousness with God. (See Romans 1-5, particularly in reference to Abraham being reckoned as righteous with God.)

Why then should righteous judgement be seen as harsh? It obviously presents a problem for Walsch and others but - "righteousness and PEACE have kissed one another." Maybe these concepts are old fashioned, but surely they are eternal. Why the need to twist or dilute the gospel as it is presented in scripture?