Concupiscence Out of Original Sin

[Skeptical]

I have long felt a desire to become a Catholic. However, I disagreed with the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on Original Sin, to the effect that concupiscence, or inclination to evil, and a non-holy unsaved state flowed out of a wounding of the human nature of all humans descended from Adam and Eve resulting from a sinful act by Adam and Eve thousands of years ago. See Catechism Paragraphs 404-405.

It’s not that I think that we are not concupiscent or that we are not stained with Original Sin…

In fact, we are concupiscent. In fact, we are unsaved until baptized.

What I disagree with is the concept that a sin committed by the first two people thousands of years ago is why we are concupisecent, and why we are unsaved.

The doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church has God depriving of Heaven everyone after Adam and Eve, because of the sin of just Adam and Eve

In effect, Catholic doctrine seems to portray God as a disgusting, evil autocrat who punishes millions for the crime of two. I always thought to myself, "If I were to punish millions for the crimes of two, God would punish me with Hell! Who is better? God, Who sets up reality to result in millions of people losing their holiness and standing before God because of the sin of two people long ago, and to result in millions being inclined to evil, because of the sin of two people long ago? Or Herod, who murdered the Holy Innocents on account of Jesus?

In this website, Peter Dawson was the first to come to grips with the problem. I thought to myself, when I read his posts, “See???!!! See???!!! This Catholic, here, understands the problem I have, and he provides good answers!”

I decided to become Catholic because of him.

However, just as I did so, the material in the thread on Original Sin which impressed me so much was erased, and Peter Dawson banned!

He is still banned.

For what? For being loving? For being interesting?

There is something wrong with this website. You hate and get rid of the good people, and you retain the haters who find joy in inferring that so-and-so is a “heretic,” and Hell-bent as a result.

I have decided to not become Catholic. And, I quit the website.

Goodbye.

Skeptical

 

[Nita]

Hi Skeptical,

Some questions to ponder:
Do you then believe that God deliberately created humans with disordered passions/desires (concupiscence) – that He deliberately created humans with a flawed nature?

If so, then how could He call “very good” something that was in fact flawed?

God didn’t punish us – that is, God didn’t “create” our flawed nature. But it did come into existence. So, if what God created was very good, how and who made it flawed?

 

[Nita]

I decided to become Catholic because of him.

Don’t ever become a Catholic because you like the opinions of someone who happens to be called, or calls himself, Catholic.
Become Catholic because you believe what the Catholic Church really teaches. (Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
To become Catholic because you liked what Peter Dawson said - even tho contrary to what the Church truly teaches - is to become a Dawsonite, not a Catholic.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Don’t ever become a Catholic because you like the opinions of someone who happens to be called, or calls himself, Catholic.
Become Catholic because you believe what the Catholic Church really teaches. (Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church)
To become Catholic because you liked what Peter Dawson said - even tho contrary to what the Church truly teaches - is to become a Dawsonite, not a Catholic.

There are three basic sources that people rely on for truth - God, Experts, Self.

If one answers God be sure that they mean God, not what the Experts say God says, not what one thinks God says. In those cases one looks to the Experts or Self and tries to give it greater authority by attributing it to God.

If one chooses God, the question is how do we determine what He says. Did He appoint someone to speak for Him through the ages? One becomes Catholic because one believes He appointed that body to speak for Him.

One becomes Catholic not because one agrees with what the Catholic Church teaches, but because one believes that the Catholic Church is God’s designated teacher.

 

[thomas_jd]

I have long felt a desire to become a Catholic. However, I disagreed with the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on Original Sin, to the effect that concupiscence, or inclination to evil, and a non-holy unsaved state flowed out of a wounding of the human nature of all humans descended from Adam and Eve resulting from a sinful act by Adam and Eve thousands of years ago. See Catechism Paragraphs 404-405.

It’s not that I think that we are not concupiscent or that we are not stained with Original Sin…

In fact, we are concupiscent. In fact, we are unsaved until baptized.

What I disagree with is the concept that a sin committed by the first two people thousands of years ago is why we are concupisecent, and why we are unsaved.

The doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church has God depriving of Heaven everyone after Adam and Eve, because of the sin of just Adam and Eve

In effect, Catholic doctrine seems to portray God as a disgusting, evil autocrat who punishes millions for the crime of two. I always thought to myself, "If I were to punish millions for the crimes of two, God would punish me with Hell! Who is better? God, Who sets up reality to result in millions of people losing their holiness and standing before God because of the sin of two people long ago, and to result in millions being inclined to evil, because of the sin of two people long ago? Or Herod, who murdered the Holy Innocents on account of Jesus?

In this website, Peter Dawson was the first to come to grips with the problem. I thought to myself, when I read his posts, “See???!!! See???!!! This Catholic, here, understands the problem I have, and he provides good answers!”

I decided to become Catholic because of him.

However, just as I did so, the material in the thread on Original Sin which impressed me so much was erased, and Peter Dawson banned!

He is still banned.

For what? For being loving? For being interesting?

There is something wrong with this website. You hate and get rid of the good people, and you retain the haters who find joy in inferring that so-and-so is a “heretic,” and Hell-bent as a result.

I have decided to not become Catholic. And, I quit the website.

Goodbye.

Skeptical

For many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[Skeptical]

I will answer what has been posted, for Peter Dawson’s sake.

Nita says, “Do you then believe that God deliberately created humans with disordered passions/desires (concupiscence) – that He deliberately created humans with a flawed nature?” First Eve and then adam sinned. Isn’t that “flawed”? Was Eve perfect? Was Adam perfect? If perfect, why did they sin? So, they were imperfect. God created them. Why do you say that Adam and Eve were without flaw?

I did an hours-long search of Peter Dawson’s posts in his post list. Peter Dawson put it this way (but in my words, not his): God had to create something less than perfect, because a perfect creation is to create something which isn’t just “like” God, but which is identical to God, and so a violation of God’s “extreme sovereignty” to that extent.

Nita says, **‘If so, then how could He call “very good” something that was in fact flawed?’ **Way back in his posts Peter Dawson notes that if we read Genesis 1 carefully, *it refrains from saying that man, specifically, was one of the things that was “very good.” *He says that 6 is the number for “evil,” and notes that man was created on Day #6. He says that man was created out of dirt, to symbolize his sinfulness. I could not find this, but I am sure that he said this: After man’s creation, God says that *everything together *is “good.” That would include the means of salvation outside of man, making evil man “good,” but not innately.

Nita says, **‘God didn’t punish us – that is, God didn’t “create” our flawed nature. But it did come into existence. So, if what God created was very good, how and who made it flawed?’ ** I already dealt with Gemesis 1. The Catechism teaches that concupiscence flowed “mysteriously” out of Adam and Eve’s sin onto every other human. (Your words seem to pretend to know more than the Catechism, which doesn’t go beyond “mysterious.”) Wars, massive evil, and Hell for billions is the result. Is there an important difference between God creating a set of dominoes mysteriously affecting billions of people with the slightest sin by two people centuries ago, and creating evil? In other words, I think that the doctrine that God made the world so that concupiscence flowed out of the sin of two people into the souls of billions of descendants is wrong. Adam and Eve didn’t create that “concupiscence machine.” I did not do it. Nita did not do it. Who did it, if God didn’t do it?

Nita says, "Don’t ever become a Catholic because you like the opinions of someone who happens to be called, or calls himself, Catholic. Become Catholic because you believe what the Catholic Church really teaches. (Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church). I said that I read the Catechism. Didn’t you read my words? I think that the Catholic Catechism is making a mistake. I agree with Peter Dawson. I don’t believe that original sin was an incident in history. I think that the story is pure fiction teaching theology. If you view original sin as an incident in history, then you have to believe that God made concupiscene flow out of an incident in history into billions of people. That just doesn’t make sense.

Nita said, **“To become Catholic because you liked what Peter Dawson said - even tho contrary to what the Church truly teaches - is to become a Dawsonite, not a Catholic.” **Here Nita is doing exactly what I complained the website permits when I wrote, “There is something wrong with this website. You hate and get rid of the good people, and you retain the haters who find joy in inferring that so-and-so is a ‘heretic,’ and Hell-bent as a result.” See? You’re doing it!

How did Peter Dawson handle it? Did he say that the Nita’s of the world are heretics? I remember clearly that he argued that “reasonable minds can differ.” He pointed out that many in this website thumb there noses at that encyclical about Mary’s assumption, which says that Mary “died,” and say that Mary didn’t die, and that even one of the theologians who run this website say that Mary didn’t die, but no one calls them “heretics” or implies that they are “heretics.” Instead of saying that so-and-so is a ‘heretic,’ he said, “Relax!”

Nita, do you deny that Mary died? Should I advise people here to avoid being a “Nita-ite”? Or is that offensive, and I should say, “Reasonable minds can differ”? You tell me.

God bless Peter Dawson. He’s the only on in this website who made sense, and he avoided implying the “h” word. He was just a kind person. He was what Christ wants Catholics to be.

 

[Nita]

I will answer what has been posted, for Peter Dawson’s sake.

Nita says, “Do you then believe that God deliberately created humans with disordered passions/desires (concupiscence) – that He deliberately created humans with a flawed nature?” First Eve and then adam sinned. Isn’t that “flawed”? Was Eve perfect? Was Adam perfect? If perfect, why did they sin? So, they were imperfect. God created them. Why do you say that Adam and Eve were without flaw?

Yes, sin is a “flaw”. But God didn’t do it, Adam and Eve did it. What God did was to create them with a truly free will. I know many people have difficulty grasping how a “free” will can be good, since it leaves one free to choose evil. That is a topic all its own, so I won’t go further here.

I did an hours-long search of Peter Dawson’s posts in his post list. Peter Dawson put it this way (but in my words, not his): God had to create something less than perfect, because a perfect creation is to create something which isn’t just “like” God, but which is identical to God, and so a violation of God’s “extreme sovereignty” to that extent.

Re underlined: this just isn’t true. For example, having a “perfect” apple and having a “perfect” rose does not mean that an apple is “identical” to a rose.
We have an all-good God who created a “good” human – but that does not mean the human is identical to God. Neither does it mean that the good qualities in the human are present in the same way and to the same degree that they are present in God.

Nita says, **‘If so, then how could He call “very good” something that was in fact flawed?’ **Way back in his posts Peter Dawson notes that if we read Genesis 1 carefully, *it refrains from saying that man, specifically, was one of the things that was “very good.” *

It very definitely includes man in what was very good. It says (re His work on the 6th day, which included the creation of man): And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
What Scripture does not do is limit the “very good” to apply only to man. It applies not only to Adam but to all the other creatures He made that day.

He says that 6 is the number for “evil,” and notes that man was created on Day #6. He says that man was created out of dirt, to symbolize his sinfulness. I could not find this, but I am sure that he said this: After man’s creation, God says that *everything together *is “good.” That would include the means of salvation outside of man, making evil man “good,” but not innately.

Various meanings have been applied to numbers. I have heard of the number 6 as representing man/ incompleteness and/or lack of fullness (The number 7 representing completeness/fullness. I believe the number 3 represents God/perfection.). Thus “666” (“6” - “3” times) is often interpreted as man claiming to be God.
I have never heard of “6” as representing evil.

Nita says, **‘God didn’t punish us – that is, God didn’t “create” our flawed nature. But it did come into existence. So, if what God created was very good, how and who made it flawed?’ ** I already dealt with Gemesis 1. The Catechism teaches that concupiscence flowed “mysteriously” out of Adam and Eve’s sin onto every other human. (Your words seem to pretend to know more than the Catechism, which doesn’t go beyond “mysterious.”)

Here is the way the Catechism states it:
CCC 404 …Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.
I certainly didn’t mean “to pretend to know more than the Catechism”! And, am unclear as to just what I said that gave you that impression.

Wars, massive evil, and Hell for billions is the result. Is there an important difference between God creating a set of dominoes mysteriously affecting billions of people with the slightest sin by two people centuries ago, and creating evil? In other words, I think that the doctrine that God made the world so that concupiscence flowed out of the sin of two people into the souls of billions of descendants is wrong. Adam and Eve didn’t create that “concupiscence machine.”

Concupiscence wasn’t “created”. (To create means to bring something into existence out of nothing.) Concupiscence is something that resulted from the misuse of what had been created – Misuse by created man of the free will He had been created with.

Nita says, "Don’t ever become a Catholic because you like the opinions of someone who happens to be called, or calls himself, Catholic. Become Catholic because you believe what the Catholic Church really teaches. (Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church). I said that I read the Catechism. Didn’t you read my words? I think that the Catholic Catechism is making a mistake. I agree with Peter Dawson. I don’t believe that original sin was an incident in history. I think that the story is pure fiction teaching theology.

That “story” existed in written form long before there was a theology of original sin.

 

[Nita]

Nita said, **“To become Catholic because you liked what Peter Dawson said - even tho contrary to what the Church truly teaches **- is to become a Dawsonite, not a Catholic.” Here Nita is doing exactly what I complained the website permits when I wrote, “There is something wrong with this website. You hate and get rid of the good people, and you retain the haters who find joy in inferring that so-and-so is a ‘heretic,’ and Hell-bent as a result.” See? You’re doing it!

I reread my statement, and I should have said (in underlined portion) even IF contrary…(instead of “tho contrary”). My apologies.
I have not been following Peter Dawson, altho his name is familiar, so I do not recall or know all the things he has posted.

Keep in mind that this particular forum is called “Apologetics” which calls for a representation/defense/and explanation of a person’s faith. When one designates oneself as a Catholic on an apologetics forum, then honesty would call for presenting what the Church teaches on the particular topic under discussion. And, if they want to put forward a private opinion that differs from Church teaching, they should be very careful to make note of that fact so as not to deceive those who read their posts. For example, I have not read Peter’s posts on original sin, but let’s just suppose they are contrary to Church teaching. **Another person reading his posts would presume that what he wrote reflected Catholic belief **-- unless he made it very clear that it was not, and in fact was in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Should I advise people here to avoid being a “Nita-ite”? Or is that offensive, and I should say, “Reasonable minds can differ”? You tell me.

YES, please advise people here to avoid being a “Nita-ite”. I would not find such a statement offensive at all.

There are areas of teaching that have not been infallibly defined and thus are open to various interpretations - and “reasonable minds can differ”. But, in the Catholic faith, once the Magisterium declares a truth to be infallible, it is no longer open to private interpretation. Even tho one’s personal thinking would lead to a contrary understanding, one accepts IN FAITH that what the Church officially teaches is the truth. That often calls for humility – as it is pride that makes us think we are wiser than the Pope and Bishops.

 

[grannymh]

God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in His goodness. Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Original Sin.

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall.

From the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Or use this handy link

Christmas Blessings,
granny

The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[grannymh]

First Eve and then adam sinned. Isn’t that “flawed”? Was Eve perfect? Was Adam perfect? If perfect, why did they sin? So, they were imperfect. God created them. Why do you say that Adam and Eve were without flaw?

I am personally grateful to the many CAF posters who have shared their individual approaches to religious beliefs. One of the things I have learned is because of different backgrounds language is used in an amazing variety of ways.

When a person indicates a desire to become a Catholic but disagrees with certain aspects of Catholic teaching, it is important to understand his or her own personal usage of words as compared with Catholic usage. Awareness of other faith concepts is valuable.

For example. Once the above quote is recognized as being based on an individual concept of human nature, then one can understand how the word perfect is being used and how it should really be used in Catholicism.

Catholic teaching is that the human being’s rational/corporeal nature is wonderfully unique in that it is an intimate unification of soul and body, spirit and matter.

Our soul, being spiritual, reflects the Spirit which is God. (See above post 9.) Early in history, people would think that the body is inferior to the spirit. The teaching in the New Testament counters this. Yet, this thinking continued through the Protestant Reformation and so on. There are some posts on CAF which appear to reflect Calvinism. Catholics are not immune to the idea that somehow the body is sinful. This needs to be considered when trying to understand what is meant by someone’s use of perfect in reference to Adam and Eve and concupiscence.

That being said. The quote above mixes together the ideas of a flawed nature and actual sin as being opposed to being perfect and coming up with the idea that God had to create something less than perfect so as to come up with impossibility of Adam being perfect and not perfect. While you take a breath, please read the rest of the quote below.

I did an hours-long search of Peter Dawson’s posts in his post list. Peter Dawson put it this way (but in my words, not his): God had to create something less than perfect, because a perfect creation is to create something which isn’t just “like” God, but which is identical to God, and so a violation of God’s “extreme sovereignty” to that extent.

The word perfect is often used from the human point of view. Thus, reasonable interpretations can exist side by side with misinterpretations; for example, because there was sin, humans are inherently imperfect and flawed because, so the OP says, God had to create something less than perfect…

Here is the difference: the Catholic Church looks at human nature from God’s point of view. There is really no “had to” about God. The OP asks: First Eve and then Adam sinned. Isn’t that “flawed”? Besides the fact that there is confusion about what Adam actually did, let’s look at “flawed” from God’s point of view.

OP – Isn’t that “flawed”? No.

Adam actually exercised free will which is a power of our spiritual soul created by God. God created man and established him in His friendship. Humans can live this friendship only in free submission to God. We need to focus on God Who gave us the means, our spiritual soul, so that we can be with Him in eternal love and peace.

As for being perfect. True perfection is union with God. God gave humans the right kind of nature which is the means to union with God. Our will is orientated toward our ultimate good which is God. But, this friendship with God can only be obtained in free submission to God. From God’s point of view, He has given us the means to choose. We, as well as Adam, can choose a substitute for God and thus we disobey God. We can choose the imperfect.

In God’s eyes, Adam’s human nature was perfect for the job he was intended to do – the job of submitting to God’s directions for eternal happiness. Adam chose otherwise.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[MercyMia]

I understand what you are saying. Many times I have thought to myself…I am not the one who has ate the stupid fruit, why do I have to keep suffering! But in many ways I did eat that fruit through all my sins that I have committed. Instead of fighting against the idea of sin being introduced into the world, I focused on how I could react to it and it made a world of difference. I look at it in the same way my sins crucified Christ even though I was not yet alive.
We may struggle with the idea of all being guilty because of the first pair of humans but I accept it because of the proof in front of me - death is the penalty for sin and I am mortal. We all are. If we were not all born with the stain of sin as a result of Adam and Eve, then babies and innocents would be immortal, wouldn’t they? But they are not - so clearly God has extended the penalty to every human born since Adam and Eve. We do not suddenly become susceptible to death at some undefined age of accountability, we are always susceptible to death, thus we are born with the effects of sin on us. We are redeemed in baptism, not my our own doing or emotions but by God’s free gift to us.

 

[grannymh]

There is a short poem. These words may not be exactly right; but the meaning is clear.

Two men looked out from prison bars.
One saw mud. The other stars.

Sin had entered the world. But did God leave? God will never abandon us because He loves us.

Because they had disobeyed, Adam and Eve hid at the sound of the Lord God moving in the garden. Was God silent? God’s voice is continuous. We simply have to uncover our ears and open our hearts.

The Lord God then called to the man… Immediately, the coming of the Messiah and Redeemer was announced by God. (Genesis 3:8-9) (*Catechism of the Catholic *Church, paragraphs 410-411 & 420-421, link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm)

God keeps calling us to look up from the mud and see the star of Bethlehem. Victory over sin can be ours. The Catholic Church offers to all the means to reach heaven. The Seven Sacraments provide us with the grace of strength to remain in God’s friendship.

To all skepticals: God is calling you. You are loved. Shake loose from the mud and see the real star, Jesus Christ, our loving and merciful Savior.

Blessings,
granny

Our human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I have long felt a desire to become a Catholic. However, I disagreed with the Catholic Catechism’s teaching on Original Sin, to the effect that concupiscence, or inclination to evil, and a non-holy unsaved state flowed out of a wounding of the human nature of all humans descended from Adam and Eve resulting from a sinful act by Adam and Eve thousands of years ago. See Catechism Paragraphs 404-405.

It’s not that I think that we are not concupiscent or that we are not stained with Original Sin…

In fact, we are concupiscent. In fact, we are unsaved until baptized.

What I disagree with is the concept that a sin committed by the first two people thousands of years ago is why we are concupisecent, and why we are unsaved.

The doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church has God depriving of Heaven everyone after Adam and Eve, because of the sin of just Adam and Eve

In effect, Catholic doctrine seems to portray God as a disgusting, evil autocrat who punishes millions for the crime of two. I always thought to myself, "If I were to punish millions for the crimes of two, God would punish me with Hell! Who is better? God, Who sets up reality to result in millions of people losing their holiness and standing before God because of the sin of two people long ago, and to result in millions being inclined to evil, because of the sin of two people long ago? Or Herod, who murdered the Holy Innocents on account of Jesus?

In this website, Peter Dawson was the first to come to grips with the problem. I thought to myself, when I read his posts, “See???!!! See???!!! This Catholic, here, understands the problem I have, and he provides good answers!”

I decided to become Catholic because of him.

However, just as I did so, the material in the thread on Original Sin which impressed me so much was erased, and Peter Dawson banned!

He is still banned.

For what? For being loving? For being interesting?

There is something wrong with this website. You hate and get rid of the good people, and you retain the haters who find joy in inferring that so-and-so is a “heretic,” and Hell-bent as a result.

I have decided to not become Catholic. And, I quit the website.

Goodbye.

Skeptical

I wondered what happened to Peter - Darn! He was the most interesting person on this forum. People really took him the wrong way. They kept accusing him of being a heretic and really hurt his feelings. I thought he was brilliant. I printed off a lot of his posts because they were awesome.

I don’t blame you for feeling the way you do. There are some pretty un-Christian Catholics on this forum in my opinion, and very dogmatic and narrow-minded ones too. That doesn’t mean all Catholics are like that though. Peter is a Catholic.