Adam & Logic

[simpleas]

I came across this :

The Fall and the origin of evil

Christians believe that when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden and turned away from God they brought sin into the world and turned the whole human race away from God.

The doctrine absolves God of responsibility for the evils that make our world imperfect by teaching that Adam and Eve introduced evil to a perfect world when they disobeyed him.

An alternative understanding of the story of the fall emphasises that Adam and Eve did wrong because they ‘gave in’ to the temptation of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

These two versions offer radically different ideas about the origin of evil:
•in the first version Adam and Eve bring evil into the world by disobeying God
•in the second version evil already exists, and Adam and Eve bring sin to humanity by giving in to it

This second understanding fits well with human psychology. Looking at it this way, original sin becomes the tendency for human beings to ‘give in’ when tempted by the prevailing evils of the society around them, rather than standing up for good, and it helps explain why each individual finds temptation so hard to resist. As the Bible puts it:

… I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate…

Romans 7:14-15

A third understanding teaches not so much that Adam’s sin brought sin into the world, but that it removed from humanity the gift that enabled people to be perfectly obedient to God.

A modern interpretation

A modern interpretation of the fall might go like this:

Adam was created in the image of God with the potential to be perfectly fulfilled through his existence and his relationship with God.

But Man failed to fulfil his potential and opted to go it alone and estrange himself from God.

Jesus as the “Second Adam” re-established the relationship with God and showed how man can become perfectly human - which puts him in right relationship with both the creator and his creation.

Usefulness of the doctrine

Original sin is a difficult doctrine, and a rather gloomy one, but it had some key theological benefits that have kept it as a mainstream Christian teaching:
•Universality: Original sin teaches that all human beings are flawed and sinful - no-one is better than anyone else
•Non-dualist: Original sin explains evil without having to portray God as having a bad side, or an evil partner, responsible for the badness in the world; evil comes from human rebelliousness
•Non-designed: Original sin explains how a world that God designed to be perfect is actually full of evil
•Not inevitable: Original sin teaches that the world could have remained perfect - it was not inevitable that Adam and Eve would disobey God
•Mechanism: Original sin demonstrates a mechanism that enabled the original disobedience to damage everyone

 

[simpleas]

The Catholic Church definitely teaches that at the moment of Original Sin, only two real human beings were alive on earth. These two persons are lovingly known as Adam and Eve as described in Genesis, first three chapters. The fact that there are only two progenitors of all humankind is the point of this thread.

I’m thinking of A&E’s own offspring being in the garden at the time of O.S, not some other species of human.

 

[simpleas]

I came across this :

The Fall and the origin of evil

Christians believe that when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden and turned away from God they brought sin into the world and turned the whole human race away from God.

The doctrine absolves God of responsibility for the evils that make our world imperfect by teaching that Adam and Eve introduced evil to a perfect world when they disobeyed him.

An alternative understanding of the story of the fall emphasises that Adam and Eve did wrong because they ‘gave in’ to the temptation of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.

These two versions offer radically different ideas about the origin of evil:
•in the first version Adam and Eve bring evil into the world by disobeying God
•in the second version evil already exists, and Adam and Eve bring sin to humanity by giving in to it

This second understanding fits well with human psychology. Looking at it this way, original sin becomes the tendency for human beings to ‘give in’ when tempted by the prevailing evils of the society around them, rather than standing up for good, and it helps explain why each individual finds temptation so hard to resist. As the Bible puts it:

… I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate…

Romans 7:14-15

A third understanding teaches not so much that Adam’s sin brought sin into the world, but that it removed from humanity the gift that enabled people to be perfectly obedient to God.

A modern interpretation

A modern interpretation of the fall might go like this:

Adam was created in the image of God with the potential to be perfectly fulfilled through his existence and his relationship with God.

But Man failed to fulfil his potential and opted to go it alone and estrange himself from God.

Jesus as the “Second Adam” re-established the relationship with God and showed how man can become perfectly human - which puts him in right relationship with both the creator and his creation.

Usefulness of the doctrine

Original sin is a difficult doctrine, and a rather gloomy one, but it had some key theological benefits that have kept it as a mainstream Christian teaching:
•Universality: Original sin teaches that all human beings are flawed and sinful - no-one is better than anyone else
•Non-dualist: Original sin explains evil without having to portray God as having a bad side, or an evil partner, responsible for the badness in the world; evil comes from human rebelliousness
•Non-designed: Original sin explains how a world that God designed to be perfect is actually full of evil
•Not inevitable: Original sin teaches that the world could have remained perfect - it was not inevitable that Adam and Eve would disobey God
•Mechanism: Original sin demonstrates a mechanism that enabled the original disobedience to damage everyone

The second version makes sense to me rather than the first.


I do not create evil, but I can give into it should I become weak in spirit. The same could be said of what A&E experienced in the garden.

 

[fhansen]

The second version makes sense to me rather than the first.


I do not create evil, but I can give into it should I become weak in spirit. The same could be said of what A&E experienced in the garden.

I guess I don’t see so much difference. In the first case A&E are responsible for the first instance of evil while in the second case evil had already occurred by satan’s rebellion. Evil had to get started somehow but our own desires still play a role either way, and culpability is only altered by a matter of degrees at best IMO. In both cases someone still has to “give in”.

 

[OneSheep]

The second version makes sense to me rather than the first.


I do not create evil, but I can give into it should I become weak in spirit. The same could be said of what A&E experienced in the garden.

Here is the “second version” you spoke of:

“in the second version evil already exists, and Adam and Eve bring sin to humanity by giving in to it.”

Well, there are more versions. St. Augustine said that whatsoever exists in any way is good.

What are we “giving in” to? I look at chimpanzee behavior. Once upon a time, a female chimp was badly disfigured by disease. Because of the disfigurement, she had become generally ostracized from her group, except for one friend, if I remember right. Also, if I remember right, the friend died, and the disfigured ape tried to stay with her group. Eventually, one of the group members killed her.

As you may know, chimpanzees are very attuned to faces and use facial recognition. The disfigured female was seen as some kind of alien. This is part of chimpanzee nature. It is a nature that has a purpose, it benefits the species in some way.

So, yes, humans do a lot of really bad stuff, but the capacities to do evil are there to benefit us in some way. The key, to me, is not to be a slave to our nature, albeit “beneficial”. Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here is the “second version” you spoke of:

“in the second version evil already exists, and Adam and Eve bring sin to humanity by giving in to it.”

Well, there are more versions. St. Augustine said that whatsoever exists in any way is good.

What are we “giving in” to? I look at chimpanzee behavior. Once upon a time, a female chimp was badly disfigured by disease. Because of the disfigurement, she had become generally ostracized from her group, except for one friend, if I remember right. Also, if I remember right, the friend died, and the disfigured ape tried to stay with her group. Eventually, one of the group members killed her.

As you may know, chimpanzees are very attuned to faces and use facial recognition. The disfigured female was seen as some kind of alien. This is part of chimpanzee nature. It is a nature that has a purpose, it benefits the species in some way.

So, yes, humans do a lot of really bad stuff, but the capacities to do evil are there to benefit us in some way. The key, to me, is not to be a slave to our nature, albeit “beneficial”. Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.

This can best be described as a misunderstanding of Augustine and of Greek philosophy generally - from which Augustine received the idea that “whatsoever exists in any way is good.”

The problem you create for yourself is in transposing chimpanzee nature onto human nature in a ‘one size fits all’ manner.

The point you missed from Augustine and Greek philosophy is that particular entities are good with respect to their proper function or purpose. A hammer, for example, is ‘good’ or virtuous in the respects for which it has been designed to be a hammer. It is the essential nature of the being that defines its ‘goodness.’ Thus, a hammer with one claw is not a ‘good’ hammer, although it might passably function as a backscratcher.

It is the final end or teleology - the purpose for which created things exist - that is the important feature that makes ‘caused’ things good. Aristotle, for example, viewed the ‘final cause’ as the most important of the four causes because it defines the end toward which things are made that is the ‘good-making’ quality.

To transpose an evolutionary function within chimpanzee behaviour - under the assumption that facial recognition has survival benefits - unto human behaviour to depict similar kinds of human behaviours as permissible (i.e., those which can be loosely described as supportive of survival) assumes that the purpose of human existence is mere survival.

In other words, you are seeking to apply a Darwinian evolution model of human existence onto the Old Testament narrative in order to reinterpret its moral implications and you do that by misconstruing Augustinian and Aristotelian concepts of the nature of the ‘good.’

The error is manifold.

Augustine’s (and Aristotle’s) point is that things that exist according to their proper nature are to that extent good. However, in classical Patristic and Greek thought (Plato and Aristotle) evil is a failure to fully exist according to that nature and moral evil is a failure to exist according to the intellective faculties (and other definable human virtues) that are proper to human beings. Since chimpanzees do not have those rational faculties or virtues, the failure of chimpanzees to value life is not a moral failure and facial recognition might be (although that point is debatable) an explanation for a particular social behaviour among chimpanzees. This fails to explain why the empathetic chimp acted as SHE did, however.

Humans operate on a completely different moral level so behaviours that might be operative in chimps with no moral condemnation would have important moral consequences for humans.

What is interesting is that Christian philosophers such as Boethius equated sin with a degradation of the human faculties such that humans, by sinning, become more animal-like in their behaviour. His argument, essentially, is that when the rational faculty and uniquely human virtues are reduced or lost by sin, the ‘animal’ soul and appetitive faculties become more dominant.

You seem to be arguing from the view that the ‘animal’ soul is the de facto nature of human beings and THAT fact should excuse human ‘animal-like’ misbehaviors (survival or instinctive responses) in a general sense. That is not the point of the Genesis narrative where God breathes his ‘image’ into human beings. The proper nature of human beings is 'God-like’ and not animalistic.

 

[fhansen]

Well, there are more versions. St. Augustine said that whatsoever exists in any way is good.

He didn’t actually say that evil was good-just that the only possible source of evil is good. But that doesn’t mean that God created evil; it means that evil exists only in relationship to good, as a detracting from or privation of it, as a choice, in the case of moral evil or sin, by beings possessing free will.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, yes, humans do a lot of really bad stuff, but the capacities to do evil are there to benefit us in some way. The key, to me, is not to be a slave to our nature, albeit “beneficial”. Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.

This is problematic because Jesus’ mission was to redeem a fallen nature. That fallen nature cannot have been our innate nature, but rather a degenerate form of it. Otherwise, Jesus didn’t come to save humanity, but rather to transpose it from a lower level of being to a higher level, a paradigm that simply doesn’t fit the narrative. The ‘fall’ presumes a reduction to begin with and the entire Biblical narrative reinforces that fact.

If your version were true, the story of Pinocchio would have been sufficient to get the message across. Admittedly, that would be an ‘easy’ tale to swallow, but, it would seem, the truth was more important to the inspired writers than merely writing a palatable story.

 

[simpleas]

I guess I don’t see so much difference. In the first case A&E are responsible for the first instance of evil while in the second case evil had already occurred by satan’s rebellion. Evil had to get started somehow but our own desires still play a role either way, and culpability is only altered by a matter of degrees at best IMO. In both cases someone still has to “give in”.

Yes A&E were not the cause of evil coming into the world, it was already there in the form of satan. Evil tempted them, then they fell, just like we are subjected to at times

 

[simpleas]

Here is the “second version” you spoke of:

“in the second version evil already exists, and Adam and Eve bring sin to humanity by giving in to it.”

Well, there are more versions. St. Augustine said that whatsoever exists in any way is good.

What are we “giving in” to? I look at chimpanzee behavior. Once upon a time, a female chimp was badly disfigured by disease. Because of the disfigurement, she had become generally ostracized from her group, except for one friend, if I remember right. Also, if I remember right, the friend died, and the disfigured ape tried to stay with her group. Eventually, one of the group members killed her.

As you may know, chimpanzees are very attuned to faces and use facial recognition. The disfigured female was seen as some kind of alien. This is part of chimpanzee nature. It is a nature that has a purpose, it benefits the species in some way.

So, yes, humans do a lot of really bad stuff, but the capacities to do evil are there to benefit us in some way. The key, to me, is not to be a slave to our nature, albeit “beneficial”. Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.

I know there are more version, I have been reading many! I also read this :

St Augustine’s theory

St Augustine, who largely devised the theory of original sin, thought that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation through sexual intercourse. Augustine did not say exactly how this happened.

He said that it was transmitted by “concupiscence”, when people had sex and conceived a child.

Concupiscence is a technical theological word that Augustine used to refer to sexual desire as something bad in the soul that was inseparable from normal human sexual impulses.

Sexual desire was bad, he taught, because it could totally overwhelm those caught up in it, depriving them of self-control and rational thought. This disapproving view of passion was quite common among Christians of Augustine’s time.

Augustine thought that concupiscence was present in all sexual intercourse. He thought that it was just as bad and uncontrolled in a marriage as it was in non-marital sex, but that an excuse could be made for it within marriage because its purpose was to produce legitimate children.

This bad element in sex provides the means by which original sin is transmitted from father to child. It transmits both humanity’s guilt for Adam’s crime and the sickness or defect that gives human beings a sinful nature.

…whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust…

[This lust] is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins.

Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin…

Augustine, De bono coniugali

In Red :

Wasn’t the theory of O.S around before Augustine?

The Council of Trent

The Council or Trent (1545-63), or Trentine councils were a series of Roman Catholic theological meetings in response to the Reformation.

The Council of Trent gave the official stamp to the idea that original sin was transferred from generation to generation by propagation - which means during the sexual act that led to conception. This formalised the notion of Original Sin as part of Roman Catholic doctrine.

The Council explicitly ruled out the idea that original sin was transferred by “imitation”; in order to block the idea that human beings just copied the bad example set by their parents and others.

In Red :

People do this all the time, don’t they…they copy each other instead of thinking for their self. Adam one could say, copied Eve…but Adam should have known better.

I know we share our DNA with primates, but we are the creature that God gave a soul/spirit to, thats why we should be able to make as good a decision as possible when caring for another person, regards of their circumstances.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I know there are more version, I have been reading many! I also read this :

St Augustine’s theory

St Augustine, who largely devised the theory of original sin, thought that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation through sexual intercourse. Augustine did not say exactly how this happened.

He said that it was transmitted by “concupiscence”, when people had sex and conceived a child.

Concupiscence is a technical theological word that Augustine used to refer to sexual desire as something bad in the soul that was inseparable from normal human sexual impulses.

Sexual desire was bad, he taught, because it could totally overwhelm those caught up in it, depriving them of self-control and rational thought. This disapproving view of passion was quite common among Christians of Augustine’s time.

Augustine thought that concupiscence was present in all sexual intercourse. He thought that it was just as bad and uncontrolled in a marriage as it was in non-marital sex, but that an excuse could be made for it within marriage because its purpose was to produce legitimate children.

This bad element in sex provides the means by which original sin is transmitted from father to child. It transmits both humanity’s guilt for Adam’s crime and the sickness or defect that gives human beings a sinful nature.

…whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust…

[This lust] is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins.

Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin…

Augustine, De bono coniugali

In Red :

Wasn’t the theory of O.S around before Augustine?

The Council of Trent

The Council or Trent (1545-63), or Trentine councils were a series of Roman Catholic theological meetings in response to the Reformation.

The Council of Trent gave the official stamp to the idea that original sin was transferred from generation to generation by propagation - which means during the sexual act that led to conception. This formalised the notion of Original Sin as part of Roman Catholic doctrine.

The Council explicitly ruled out the idea that original sin was transferred by “imitation”; in order to block the idea that human beings just copied the bad example set by their parents and others.

In Red :

People do this all the time, don’t they…they copy each other instead of thinking for their self. Adam one could say, copied Eve…but Adam should have known better.

I know we share our DNA with primates, but we are the creature that God gave a soul/spirit to, thats why we should be able to make as good a decision as possible when caring for another person, regards of their circumstances.

Several points to add to this…

1. Augustine’s view that concupiscence (state of original sin) is passed on to successive generations may find some support in the study of epigenetics, where certain behaviours or social traits are passed on genetically via the ‘open structure’ of some genes.
2. Augustine’s view that a particular perspective on and use of the sex act is wrong does not entail that the sex act itself is wrong. It means that without a proper perspective and ordering regarding sexuality, the sex act itself may be sinful. It is this ‘wrong’ perspective that may have found itself transmitted to successive generations such that this misperceived view has become the prevailing one. In short, Augustine is not arguing that sex itself, by nature, is sinful, he is arguing that certain abuses of sex are and that these misapprehensions may, in fact, be the prevalent ones among human beings.

So, for example, your point that

“Sexual desire was bad, he taught, because it could totally overwhelm those caught up in it, depriving them of self-control and rational thought. This disapproving view of passion was quite common among Christians of Augustine’s time.”

does not quite adequately make his point. He would claim that WHEN (not because) sexual desire totally overwhelms self-control and rational thought it is bad, and, in fact, in fallen human nature this may predominantly be the case. That claim still does not amount to a claim that sex is bad, but that a particular disordered abuse of it is.

1. Fr. Barron has an interesting way of showing the distinction between evil ‘as infection’ (propagation) and evil ‘as imitation’ in his analysis of the movie World War Z

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/World-War-Z-A-commentary-by-Fr-Barron.aspx

Edit: The video seems temporarily unavailable on wordonfire.org, try this link instead

youtu.be/_apzWlqJTmo

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by OneSheep forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
So, yes, humans do a lot of really bad stuff, but the capacities to do evil are there to benefit us in some way. The key, to me, is not to be a slave to our nature, albeit “beneficial”. Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature*.***

This is problematic because Jesus’ mission was to redeem a fallen nature. That fallen nature cannot have been our innate nature, but rather a degenerate form of it. Otherwise, Jesus didn’t come to save humanity, but rather to transpose it from a lower level of being to a higher level, a paradigm that simply doesn’t fit the narrative. The ‘fall’ presumes a reduction to begin with and the entire Biblical narrative reinforces that fact.

If your version were true, the story of Pinocchio would have been sufficient to get the message across. Admittedly, that would be an ‘easy’ tale to swallow, but, it would seem, the truth was more important to the inspired writers than merely writing a palatable story.

I was wondering when someone would spot “Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.” Though I never would have guessed that the reply to that sentence would give me an additional perspective on Original Sin – that the mission of Jesus was to redeem a fallen nature in addition to repairing the broken relationship between Divinity and humanity.

I have always looked at Jesus as giving us the means to overcome the effects of Original Sin. I have always known the theological differences between pre-Fall Adam and post-Fall Adam. I know that Original Sin did not totally corrupt human nature; rather it wounded human nature.

Now, when I think about Jesus coming to redeem human nature per se, that puts the Glory of God front and center in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[OneSheep]

To transpose an evolutionary function within chimpanzee behaviour - under the assumption that facial recognition has survival benefits - unto human behaviour to depict similar kinds of human behaviours as permissible (i.e., those which can be loosely described as supportive of survival) assumes that the purpose of human existence is mere survival.
.

I’m sorry, Peter, I must have given the impression that similar kinds of human behavior are permissible. That is not the case.

In light of that modification, you may wish to change how and to what arguments you would like me to respond, assuming, of course, you invite a response.

Oh, yes, I do have a regard for Saint Charles Darwin.

 

[fhansen]

Several points to add to this…

1. Augustine’s view that concupiscence (state of original sin) is passed on to successive generations may find some support in the study of epigenetics, where certain behaviours or social traits are passed on genetically via the ‘open structure’ of some genes.
2. Augustine’s view that a particular perspective on and use of the sex act is wrong does not entail that the sex act itself is wrong. It means that without a proper perspective and ordering regarding sexuality, the sex act itself may be sinful. It is this ‘wrong’ perspective that may have found itself transmitted to successive generations such that this misperceived view has become the prevailing one. In short, Augustine is not arguing that sex itself, by nature, is sinful, he is arguing that certain abuses of sex are and that these misapprehensions may, in fact, be the prevalent ones among human beings.

So, for example, your point that

does not quite adequately make his point. He would claim that WHEN (not because) sexual desire totally overwhelms self-control and rational thought it is bad, and, in fact, in fallen human nature this may predominantly be the case. That claim still does not amount to a claim that sex is bad, but that a particular disordered abuse of it is.

1. Fr. Barron has an interesting way of showing the distinction between evil ‘as infection’ (propagation) and evil ‘as imitation’ in his analysis of the movie World War Z

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/World-War-Z-A-commentary-by-Fr-Barron.aspx

Edit: The video seems temporarily unavailable on wordonfire.org, try this link instead

youtu.be/_apzWlqJTmo

I believe that Augustine thought that sexual desire was always inordinate in fallen man, having lost self-mastery, and therefore OS was transmitted via the sex act whereas Aquinas simply taught that the sin was transmitted via propagation without reference to the specific mechanism.

 

[fhansen]

This is problematic because Jesus’ mission was to redeem a fallen nature. That fallen nature cannot have been our innate nature, but rather a degenerate form of it. Otherwise, Jesus didn’t come to save humanity, but rather to transpose it from a lower level of being to a higher level, a paradigm that simply doesn’t fit the narrative. The ‘fall’ presumes a reduction to begin with and the entire Biblical narrative reinforces that fact.

This is also a bit problematic though, isn’t it? In Catholic teaching Adam simply fell to a “natural” state, without possession of the supernatural and preternatural gifts which are not an essential part of man’s nature-and which are, therefore, only available to man to the extent that he remains in communion with God. Justice nevertheless demands that we remain in this communion, because of the havoc raised by sin when any part of creation lies outside of God’s perfect will. Jesus came to restore this justice to us, to reconcile us with God and elevate us back to the heights that He created us to exist in-or even higher yet than Adam was first created in-but he won’t force us to do so any more than he forced Adam to. An aspect of our justice, apparently, is that we *will *it, as God aids us with the help of His grace.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…This is part of chimpanzee nature. It is a nature that has a purpose, it benefits the species in some way.

So, yes, humans do a lot of really bad stuff, but the capacities to do evil are there to benefit us in some way. The key, to me, is not to be a slave to our nature, albeit “beneficial”. Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.

My ‘misconception’ arises from your equating the survival ‘benefits’ accrued to species, like chimpanzees, from behaviours geared to survival, which, you seem to imply, are integral to nature and, therefore, good.

By implication, any human behaviour that can be attributed to a survival urge must, by that fact, be good, a part of “our good nature.” By this reading, seeking to make oneself ‘better’ must be good in itself. Ergo, Eve trying to become more like God must have been a ‘good’ urge under this paradigm.

The problem, according to Patristic writing, classic Greek philosophy and Scripture, is that making oneself out to be more (or less) than what you are by nature is, essentially, what sin and, in particular, pride are all about. Thus, to use Aristotle again, a hammer trying to be a tree is simply a misconceived enterprise and will only end up creating large issues for the hammer.

Existing according to one’s inherent nature is the point of Aristotelian moral thinking and that line of thought was subsumed into Christian ethics because, essentially, it is what the Biblical narrative was all about - the Tower of Babel, for instance. The narrative is compounded by the fact that the ‘inherent nature’ of human beings has been ontologically compromised (by the fall), so it has become difficult to apprehend the ‘true’ nature of humanity from the ‘false’ depictions of it that seem to be rampant in history.

This is the reason why Jesus came - not only to provide a model (which would suit the ‘imitation’ view of evil), but also to provide an antidote (more in line with the ‘propagation’ view of evil) against the corruption of human nature.

The entire sacramental structure of the Church, in particular the Eucharist, seems highly attuned to the deeper view of evil as a corruption of the very nature of humanity wherein it has become difficult to separate out authentic human nature from its corrupt form.

The point here is that since we all suffer from this corruption to some level or other, it is to that extent that we are incompetent to properly assess what ‘good’ human nature, in fact, is. We become more capable of perceiving it only to the extent that we are regenerated.

For this reason, merely because certain traits are found to exist socially or historically in human beings collectively, is not a sufficient reason to include them as integral to human nature.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I believe that Augustine thought that sexual desire was always inordinate in fallen man, having lost self-mastery, and therefore OS was transmitted via the sex act whereas Aquinas simply taught that the sin was transmitted via propagation without reference to the specific mechanism.

I understand that such an impression might be easily taken away from Augustine, but that is more a function of reading into his words what has been commonly interpreted to be his words.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to say more on this. It would seem to be a topic for another thread, in any case.

 

[simpleas]

Several points to add to this…

1. Augustine’s view that concupiscence (state of original sin) is passed on to successive generations may find some support in the study of epigenetics, where certain behaviours or social traits are passed on genetically via the ‘open structure’ of some genes.
2. Augustine’s view that a particular perspective on and use of the sex act is wrong does not entail that the sex act itself is wrong. It means that without a proper perspective and ordering regarding sexuality, the sex act itself may be sinful. It is this ‘wrong’ perspective that may have found itself transmitted to successive generations such that this misperceived view has become the prevailing one. In short, Augustine is not arguing that sex itself, by nature, is sinful, he is arguing that certain abuses of sex are and that these misapprehensions may, in fact, be the prevalent ones among human beings.

So, for example, your point that

does not quite adequately make his point. He would claim that WHEN (not because) sexual desire totally overwhelms self-control and rational thought it is bad, and, in fact, in fallen human nature this may predominantly be the case. That claim still does not amount to a claim that sex is bad, but that a particular disordered abuse of it is.

1. Fr. Barron has an interesting way of showing the distinction between evil ‘as infection’ (propagation) and evil ‘as imitation’ in his analysis of the movie World War Z

wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/World-War-Z-A-commentary-by-Fr-Barron.aspx

Edit: The video seems temporarily unavailable on wordonfire.org, try this link instead

youtu.be/_apzWlqJTmo

Thanks for the link, pretty interesting. I have not seen the movie.

Here is what i have read about St Augustine’s view of sexuality, I’m not sure if this is a correct description :

For Augustine, the evil of sexual immorality was not in the sexual act itself, but rather in the emotions that typically accompany it. In On Christian Doctrine Augustine contrasts love, which is enjoyment on account of God, and lust, which is not on account of God.[125] For Augustine, proper love exercises a denial of selfish pleasure and the subjugation of corporeal desire to God. He wrote that the pious virgins raped during the sack of Rome, were innocent because they did not intend to sin.[126][127]

Augustine’s view of sexual feelings as sinful affected his view of women. For example he considered a man’s erection to be sinful, though involuntary,[128] because it did not take place under his conscious control. His solution was to place controls on women to limit their ability to influence men.[129]

He believed that the serpent approached Eve because she was less rational and lacked self-control, while Adam’s choice to eat was viewed as an act of kindness so that Eve would not be left alone.[129] Augustine believed sin entered the world because man (the spirit) did not exercise control over woman (the flesh).[130] Augustine’s views on women were not all negative, however. In his Tractates on the Gospel of John, Augustine, commenting on the Samaritan woman from John 4:1–42, uses the woman as a figure of the church.

According to Raming, the authority of the Decretum Gratiani, a collection of Roman Catholic canon law which prohibits women from leading, teaching, or being a witness, rests largely on the views of the early church fathers—one of the most influential being St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo.[131] The laws and traditions founded upon St. Augustine’s views of sexuality and women continue to exercise considerable influence over church doctrinal positions regarding the role of women in the church.[132]

This sentence is alittle confusing to me… Thoughts anyone?

Augustine believed sin entered the world because man (the spirit) did not exercise control over woman (the flesh).

 

[simpleas]

I was wondering when someone would spot “Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.” Though I never would have guessed that the reply to that sentence would give me an additional perspective on Original Sin – that the mission of Jesus was to redeem a fallen nature in addition to repairing the broken relationship between Divinity and humanity.

I have always looked at Jesus as giving us the means to overcome the effects of Original Sin. I have always known the theological differences between pre-Fall Adam and post-Fall Adam. I know that Original Sin did not totally corrupt human nature; rather it wounded human nature.

Now, when I think about Jesus coming to redeem human nature per se, that puts the Glory of God front and center in the first three chapters of Genesis.

I was wondering what onesheep meant by the sentence “Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.”

And thought it meant something like, people believe what they are doing is good and for the good of others, when in fact its wrong and that Jesus opens our eyes to see what we think is our good nature is actually killing us and others.

 

[grannymh]

** All of us need to remember**
** that not every word of St. Augustine **
** and the Early Church Fathers **
** is automatically a Catholic doctrine. **

​