E
Elf01
Guest
Do you have the quotes or post number where they are?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
You wrote: “This is not only off-topic, but if we were to apply the modern use of the word “cause”, then it would be false. We are all responsible for our own actions. What I do or say may trigger something in another person, or it may give a false impression, but ultimately each one of us makes our own choices. We are the cause of our own choices, always, even when made in complete ignorance.”
A. A weak person may act wrongly as a result of receiving scandal. The scandal is a cautive factor, a motive. A weak person may not be culpable for their action.
You wrote: “Malice”, then, has blindness or lacking awareness as an essential ingredient."
A. No, malice has love of some temporal good over the order of reason, etc., followed with action (deliberation). “The evil of a conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God.” - Modern Catholic Dictionary
You wrote: "The point was that people have a greater “dominion of reason” after their experiences. … After the error, they would have something closer to “dominion of reason”.
A. No, the dominion is not based upon reason but upon grace. We are capable of receiving supernatural grace because of our “a spiritual and immortal” soul (CCC 1703). We can choose to cooperate with grace or not.
You wrote: “the Church with its more modern, charitable stance, never says any particular person committed a mortal sin.” and “I can’t find anywhere in dogma that their sin was “mortal”. If it was dogma, why would it not be in the CCC?”
A. Their initial state is given in CCC 375, original “state of holiness and justice” and that it was lost: “CCC 416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.”. Note also that The Baltimore Catechism is free from error on dogma. The Council of Trent in the decree on original sin used the term justice and that is more universal between the west and east, easily seen as a better term to use when writing universally. When Adam and Eve lost their justice they lost their sanctifying grace, which is also called a grave sin for which one is culpable, that is, a mortal sin.
You wrote: "None of this contests what I said, which was “It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”. We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc. There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin.”
A. Yes it does and there is another namely malice. It is human to sin, it is supernatural to remain free from sin, which capabilty we receive through supernatural grace.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
You wrote: “It is a disordered thinking, not one that reflects dominion of reason.”
A. Yes, when the will to sin occurs one ceases to exercise dominion given through supernatural grace.
You wrote: “If Adam and Eve had “dominion of reason over appetite” then they would already know that doing evil already has natural consequences, and doing good does also.”
A. They were given gifts that allowed that greated than afforded by human nature. They were constituted with original justice.
You wrote: “Contempt means “disregard”. Their disregard of the order does not reflect “dominion of reason”, it shows a lack of awareness.”
A. No, to disregard does not mean lack of awareness, it means “to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice” - Merriam Webster
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Vico!
Looks like we have finally found a solution, if you are willing to admit it.
And, BTW, this means that if one insists that the literal Adam and Eve had “dominion of reason over appetite” then “malice” was not a factor, because they were graced with not being subject to “love of some temporal good” (appetite) over reason.
Despite your “no”, it sounds like we are finally in agreement!
Looks like we have finally found a solution, if you are willing to admit it.
So, your answer should actually have been “yes”. If “malice has love of some temporal good over the order of reason”, then my point is made, blindness or lack of awareness is the essential ingredient. A “conscious and deliberate transgression of the law of God”, then, has blindness or lacking awareness as an essential ingredient.
And, BTW, this means that if one insists that the literal Adam and Eve had “dominion of reason over appetite” then “malice” was not a factor, because they were graced with not being subject to “love of some temporal good” (appetite) over reason.
Despite your “no”, it sounds like we are finally in agreement!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Okay, if they actually had been graced with "dominion of reason" that grace did not include the knowledge they would actually know from experience. Again, if you want to counter this point, explain how people never learn from their mistakes.
I have addressed malice in my previous post above. It sounds like we are in agreement.
It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”. We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc. There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin. "Malice" is not a counterpoint, it says the same thing.
O
OneSheep
Guest
When the will to sin occurs, it is already because of disordered thinking.
I did not say that disregard means lack of awareness, I said that disregard shows lack of awareness.
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
And here lies the crux. You have an opinion and view of the fall and you are only asking questions and not as I requested earlier showing us your cards… Please explain briefly in your perspective the fall. Is it that we are saying that God created us to fall in as much as he did not provide enough grace not to fall?
O
OneSheep
Guest
In a sense, falling itself is part of being created. It is not that man failed some test, but that we fall, we learn, we get up, we get better. Humanity is in a state of becoming more reasonable, and we do so by falling and learning. I sense that statement doesn’t satisfy you, though.
Well, He certainly did not provide “dominion of reason”. As did Adam and Eve, we continue to fall, and continue to learn from our errors.
Last edited:
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
It does satisfy, thank you. So your not open to the idea of the devil?
O
OneSheep
Guest
We’ve addressed this above and through PM.
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
Yes, but your outlook is without any hint of the devil and this is incorrect to disregard the serpent.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
The serpent represents the imagination, which is influenced by desire.
F
fhansen
Guest
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Well, it was both. Self-control itself is developed through wisdom, correct?
Having a lack of wisdom does not jibe with “having dominion of reason over appetite” because they had an appetite for wanting to be like God.
Note: I am not saying that they “wanted to be like God” for its own sake. To me, in the literal story they merely wanted to have the knowledge.
I tend to agree with this, depending on the definitions.
Yes, in the literal story, their thinking showed a lack of wisdom, not dominion of reason.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
We can see it that way I guess but the control over appetites/lack of concupiscence and then later their loss of this control refers to the struggle with discipline that we all deal with everyday in my understanding, regarding 1) lust for a variety of pleasures, 2) greed or desire for wealth and possessions, and 3) pride/desire for glory-all inordinately desired. But this desire, to be like God, was ordinate, they were just looking to fulfill it inordinately.
Either way the first sin involved the introduction of pride into man’s world, setting himself above anything including God. This is his “fault”, the wound we all struggle with because it, alone, opens the door to all regular sins, to all lack of self-mastery. By rejecting God as God restraint is gone, because any Restrainer is effectively denied. We need to learn of the “inordinateness” of this situation or state of being for man.
We need to learn that the Restrainer, the Law-maker, does, indeed, exist, and that His laws happen to be right and good as we come to learn that He is right, trustworthy, and good. That was Jesus’s mission, to reveal the true face of God since we’ve had a “distorted image” of Him to one degree or another in the past. We’re not here to make our own laws, but rather to learn that the Creator’s laws are already in place and are good and based on righteousness, truth, and love and in our best interest such that obedience to them, to Him, wrought by our love, is the right course. It’s to eat of the Tree of Life. A struggle to achieve, with His help, and a worthy one.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
You wrote: “Despite your “no”, it sounds like we are finally in agreement!”
A. No, it is not the love of some temporal good over the order of reason, etc., but it is the act of the will (which begins with deliberation). Malice does not have blindness or lacking awareness as an essential ingredient, rather it is that which is evil that is done deliberately with full knowledge.
V
Vico
Guest
You wrote: “I did not say that disregard means lack of awareness, I said that disregard shows lack of awareness.”
For malice with regard to Adam and Eve, which we are addressing, there is not a lack of awareness. There certainly is a great difference between the malice of a mortal sin and that of a venial sin.
V
Vico
Guest
You wrote: "Okay, if they actually had been graced with dominion of reason that grace did not include the knowledge they would actually know from experience.
A. Mankind is not perfected at conception, but in a state of journey.
You wrote: “It is unhuman to make a choice to sin if one has “dominion of reason”.”
A. No it is potential and may not be realized.
You wrote: “We choose to sin exactly because we are either ignorant, or overcome by appetite, blinded by anger, etc. There isn’t another reason why people choose to sin. “Malice” is not a counterpoint, it says the same thing.”
A. No, malice is another thing than what you listed. There are three categories: ignorance, passion, and malice. Catholic Encylopedia:
O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
H
hergratefulchild
Guest
That’s quite a reach to state that the serpent is imagination. Isn’t it?
- Status