And what is the source this disorder attachment? Imperfection. Yet we do sin out of freedom.
You’re using the term “imperfection” ambiguously at best.
What part of that “imperfection” causes the disordered attachment?
This is a contradictory statement. We are in fact are not free when we act upon our purpose and ends since we are acting upon our purpose and ends.
Freedom is not defined the same as license. Freedom is properly defined as the responsibility to do the good that we ought, not the ability to do what we like.
E.g. A train is designed to travel from one point to another on a track, that is its purpose and end. Then someone came along and told that train that those tracks which take it to its destinations were hampering and restricting its freedom, and that to be truly free it must jump the track and choose its own way. If that train then jumps the track to be free of it and crashes, it would by definition be stuck and not be free to travel any longer.
There is no freedom in a will enslaved to sin, just as there is no freedom in a train which is derailed.
We are imperfect yet perfection is approachable through the right practice which involves the knowledge of what is good and bad to do on the spot so called morality.
So are you saying that “perfection” is achievable by our own powers and abilities?
The blind obedience however does not grant any understanding of morality.
Where did I say anything about “blind obedience”?
And so it is your contention that in order to know good we have to know evil? That in order to understand “thou shalt not kill” that we have to know what it is to kill someone?
I don’t understand how do you reach to such a conclusion.
Sound reasoning.
It is not ambiguous. It means that perfection is the goal and free will is the tools.
And tools can and often are used badly. Tools, like that train, are ordered to an end or purpose. Thus free will is necessarily ordered to the good and is only “free” when it chooses the good.
If I use a hammer to fasten a nail into wood, then I am using that hammer correctly as a tool. If I use that same hammer instead to try and screw in a wood screw, I’m am definitely not using that tool according to its purpose, even though I am exercising the “freedom”(as you are using it) to do so. I am not using the tool according to its purpose but abusing it, as well as looking like a fool in the attempt.
Theologically speaking the Christian faith teaches that even free will alone falls short of achieving perfection, that morality alone, as good as morality is, falls drastically short of the real purpose man was made. And that even morality alone is nearly impossible without divine assistance.
No, what you say is inconsistent. You have to either accept that the imperfection is the source of sin or not. If yes sin is possible given circumstances and if not then you have to explain how possibly someone could commit sin.
False dichotomy.
Man’s imperfection is the source of sin, not any imperfection on the part of God(just to be clear by what is being said).
Sin is thus possible in any act on the part of man.
How people commit sin is based upon the
perceived good in the sin itself. They want the false good sought. People steal in order to obtain the good they desire, yet it is obtained sinfully by following greed or covetousness. They believe that what they desire is absolutely their due. God never created that desire to steal, nor the act of stealing, those are entirely on the part of the person committing the act.
So it is not “inconsistent”.
In first case God is responsible for sin since he knows that imperfect creatures fail given circumstances.
Not directly, no. No more than you are responsible because you see someone else steal something. Your seeing it did not cause them to choose to steal.
