The Synod Youth: Enzo Bianchi and original sin in the context of a dissolution
Latest posts by Father Giovanni (see all)
- The definition of the essence of man - 26 November 2018
- Reflection moral honesty of language: the Church has always had its own clear and precise language - 11 November 2018
- The Synod Youth: Enzo Bianchi and original sin in the context of a dissolution - 20 October 2018
The original sin was transmitted to other men for SOLIDARITY '. Just the kind of solidarity that is now rather trivially used as a synonym for “give me your money”.
Writes White: “… we know that the first man's evil reign in nature even before: the wolf ate the lamb.”
But how could the Whites misjudge that the wolf eat the lamb, if he had the innate “knowledge of good and evil”? Perhaps the owners of dogs or cats as poorly morsels of lamb or chicken to give their beloved animals?
Father Giovanni,
Lei says: "For Bianchi, as we have already seen, the tendency to sin is not proper to fallen human nature from a primitive state of innocence, but it is inherent in human nature itself. But if evil is naturally in humans, then evil is natural and it is not bad. So, thinking that Christ deliver us from evil is an illusion or a flaw. "And later: "Bianchi recognizes that God can not will sin, ie the evil of guilt; it is deficient when it comes to punishment or divine punishment, in which God inflicts a just penalty. In the name of mercy, Bianchi does not want to admit the punitive justice, that seems unworthy cruelty of God's Love ".
Indeed, because it admits the punitive justice (and the right "infinite" mercy: infinity, that is, for those not so unfair as to refuse it) if evil is naturally in humans? And why should I repent if I do the evil nature? No, God is absolutely good, and I forgive me because my lower nature does not need to be forgiven. Although we try to be very good we, as the best of men teaches, Jesus. (This is a subtle demonic in his speech because false humility prepares a rebellion against God himself).
Whether you come to this kind of conclusions (although disguised by the ambiguous style "here I deny it," I say here in our sample) it shows for example this prodigious mystification of the meaning of the "Prodigal Son parable" I draw from an article written by gravure Christian family: http://www.famigliacristiana.it/articolo/enzo-bianchi-la-misericordia-e-uno-scandalo-che-gli-uomini-religiosi-non-hanno-capito.aspx
"At the beginning, When he returns home, the prodigal son does not do it because he was sorry but because she was sick and had nothing to eat so much that says to his father, with peremptorily, the command: "Make me like one of your hired servants". The father does not seek explanations, the immediately she gives the best robe, the ring on his hand and kills the fatted calf to celebrate. The father's forgiveness precedes repentance of the prodigal son. Here the scandal ».
It 'true that forgiveness, that is, the willingness to forgive by the father precedes repentance son, but because forgiveness you must implement in her son mature willingness to be forgiven, and this happens when your son says to himself: "I will get up and I go to my father, and I will say: 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you ... ", that is, when the son repents, He recognizes the truth, and with it God the father figure. For Smith rather forgiveness takes place, or becomes effective, before the son's repentance and independently of it, that is, when still in the soul of the son is only the calculation of a man in despair, even if, seems to understand, his son should have somehow "penitent", why more and somehow we must also not get rid unwisely repentance entirely from the speech ...
Not to be forgotten the words of the father to the eldest son: “Son, you are always with me and all that is mine is yours”;
the father so that specific, having the youngest son burned its entire part of the inheritance, all remaining assets would be inherited by the eldest son.