How, exactly, does Original Sin make us inclined to sin?

[catholic1seeks]

Original Sin inclines us to sin.

These days, we know that many of the things that traditionally have been understood to be sinful have a biological/natural basis within the person. Individuals can be more prone to anger or getting drunk, for example, simply because that is how their brain works. Even more modern issues of morality, like homosexuality, often assume a possible biological/natural basis.

The perplexity/question then is this: Knowing what we do from science – how our inclinations to act sinful are often thanks to biological factors and conditions – what do we mean when we say that Original Sin is the cause of our inclination to sin? Do we mean that Original Sin affected our biology? This would be an interesting claim, since humans were put in a world that already had discrepancies in nature, even before the Fall: tornadoes, earthquakes, and thorns all existed before humans arrived on the scene. It would seem out of place for humans to exist on a different level in a world that already had these conditions.

So what then of original sin? Perhaps could it mean it is a lack of the ability to integrate our biological selves with a greater inclination to love God?

 

[catholic1seeks]

I think the answer to this question has implications for how we approach sin, culpability, and what in fact sin is.

 

[ricmat]

Original Sin inclines us to sin.
​

Perhaps a better way to think about it is “Because of original sin, we start life without the original sanctifying grace which helps us to stay holy.”

These days, we know that many of the things that traditionally have been understood to be sinful have a biological/natural basis within the person. Individuals can be more prone to anger or getting drunk, for example, simply because that is how their brain works. Even more modern issues of morality, like homosexuality, often assume a possible biological/natural basis.

Temptations come to every human, sometimes stronger or weaker as you say above. Temptation in itself is not a sin. And biological deficiencies do not somehow take over your will power and make you do bad things - except in very extreme cases. We can generally call on God for help by prayer to overcome the temptations “working on our biology.”

So what then of original sin? Perhaps could it mean it is a lack of the ability to integrate our biological selves with a greater inclination to love God?

Lack of ability with regard to falling to temptation can be helped substantially by infusions of grace - through the sacraments, prayer, good works, etc.

Or so it seems to me ​

 

[catholic1seeks]

Temptations come to every human, sometimes stronger or weaker as you say above. Temptation in itself is not a sin. And biological deficiencies do not somehow take over your will power and make you do bad things - except in very extreme cases. We can generally call on God for help by prayer to overcome the temptations “working on our biology.”

This does not speak to how Original Sin causes these sinful inclinations. Are you saying we would have these temptations, due to biology, even without Original Sin/the Fall?

 

[ricmat]

This does not speak to how Original Sin causes these sinful inclinations. Are you saying we would have these temptations, due to biology, even without Original Sin/the Fall?

Original sin causes us to lack sanctifying grace. That’s not a biology (body) thing, but a spiritual (soul) thing.

I’m out of my league here… but some things that occur to me is that Adam and Eve had no original sin, and fell to temptation. They could have called on God for help, but didn’t.

Also, pride was what caused the fall of Satan, as well as Adam and Eve. Pride isn’t biological, or it wouldn’t have affected Satan.

Also, I think that there is way too much credit given to the “I can’t help myself because my genes made me do it” way of thinking that is now so common.

 

[pianistclare]

From the Catechism:

*The reality of sin

386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265 *

 

[ericc]

Perhaps a better way to think about it is “Because of original sin, we start life without the original sanctifying grace which helps us to stay holy.”

But A & E created without OS and with supernatural grace shouldn’t have fallen then. Stupidity isn’t a sin, is it? Someone with supernatural grace wouldn’t have fallen into disobedience. Something is missing in why A & E fell.

One possible view, if I may hazard a guess, is that Eve made from the rib of Adam has lesser supernatural grace or brains than Adam. Adam , without thinking about the graveness of the implications, ate the fruit offered by Eve. And Adam being responsible for Eve, is vicariously liable for the offense.

Prior to them eating from the tree of knowledge, they couldn’t have been very smart?

 

[davidv]

But A & E created without OS and with supernatural grace shouldn’t have fallen then. Stupidity isn’t a sin, is it? Someone with supernatural grace wouldn’t have fallen into disobedience. Something is missing in why A & E fell.

One possible view, if I may hazard a guess, is that Eve made from the rib of Adam has lesser supernatural grace or brains than Adam. Adam , without thinking about the graveness of the implications, ate the fruit offered by Eve. And Adam being responsible for Eve, is vicariously liable for the offense.

Prior to them eating from the tree of knowledge, they couldn’t have been very smart?

Do you think stupidity is the cause of sin? I do not.

What is it about supernatural grace that makes sin impossible?

There is nothing missing in why A & E fell. They were given a command and the consequences for not obeying. They were not stupid, and were properly instructed. On the prompting of the serpent, they gave up their trust in God and let pride (passion), and not their intellect, rule.

 

[catholic1seeks]

We know the account in Genesis uses figurative language and, beyond that, is a mythic representation of a larger truth. So trying to understand the Fall in terms of the tree, the fruit, the serpent, or woman coming from man’s side is a misplaced approach.

 

[pianistclare]

We know the account in Genesis uses figurative language and, beyond that, is a mythic representation of a larger truth. So trying to understand the Fall in terms of the tree, the fruit, the serpent, or woman coming from man’s side is a misplaced approach.

No. It’s not either/or. it’s both/and.
Read this:
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[catholic1seeks]

No. It’s not either/or. it’s both/and.
Read this:
catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

I am aware that there are fundamental truths expressed by the account. But trying to understand the truths in terms and vocabulary of the metaphorical language is not helpful.

 

[pianistclare]

I am aware that there are fundamental truths expressed by the account. But trying to understand the truths in terms and vocabulary of the metaphorical language is not helpful.

What are you trying to ask?
I recommend the Ignatius Study booklet of Genesis.

 

[catholic1seeks]

pianistclare:
What are you trying to ask?
I recommend the Ignatius Study booklet of Genesis.

My original question:

How does original sin leave us in a sinful state so inclined to fall and sin? Did it disrupt our biological harmony, since biological factors seem to be the cause of various inclinations to commit certain sins? Or, maybe, is there no disruption here – the biology is what it would have always would have been if man never had fallen (people would still be biologically prone to anger or alcoholism or homosexuality etc.) – but oroginal sin is the absense of some ability to integrate our biological desires with a primary inclination to follow God and do good?

 

[pianistclare]

My original question:

How does original sin leave us in a sinful state so inclined to fall and sin? Did it disrupt our biological harmony, since biological factors seem to be the cause of various inclinations to commit certain sins? Or, maybe, is there no disruption here – the biology is what it would have always would have been if man never had fallen (people would still be biologically prone to anger or alcoholism or homosexuality etc.) – but oroginal sin is the absense of some ability to integrate our biological desires with a primary inclination to follow God and do good?

Sin is not biological.
It’s more about pride, envy, selfishness. these are things of the mind the soul, the heart.
Of course, in the beginning man needed to eat. but when that desire to eat moves to a selfish desire to hoard food, or take food from one, then enters greed: sin.
Mankind suffers fro these 'feelings" that separate us from God. God made all things harmonious. Man can disrupt that harmony through sin.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Sin is not biological.
It’s more about pride, envy, selfishness. these are things of the mind the soul, the heart.
Of course, in the beginning man needed to eat. but when that desire to eat moves to a selfish desire to hoard food, or take food from one, then enters greed: sin.
Mankind suffers fro these 'feelings" that separate us from God. God made all things harmonious. Man can disrupt that harmony through sin.

So original sin had no affect on the biology of humans? In the “garden,” mankind could be prone to anger and the like and being born with cancer or other naturally occurances?

 

[pianistclare]

So original sin had no affect on the biology of humans? In the “garden,” mankind could be prone to anger and the like and being born with cancer or other naturally occurances?

Anger is not biological.
I see where you are going with this.
Perhaps this is what you refer to?
**2448 "In its various forms - material deprivation, unjust oppression, physical and psychological illness and death - human misery is the obvious sign of the inherited condition of frailty and need for salvation in which man finds himself as a consequence of original sin. This misery elicited the compassion of Christ the Savior, who willingly took it upon himself and identified himself with the least of his brethren. Hence, those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere."248 **

I would pay close attention to the words: Inherited condition of frailty and the need for salvation …as a consequence of original sin.

 

[Usagi]

Even without knowing as much as we do about biology, the early theologians of Original Sin (I’d suggest checking out Augustine, who really hammered out the Western understanding of the concept) asserted that Adam and Eve originally had complete control over their passions and appetites, a control that was lost after the Fall. So, yeah, I think you’re on the right track. A&E (in whatever form they literally existed) were granted both bolstered biology (not getting sick or dying) and bolstered reason and will that made the impulses coming from their bodies easier to resist when inappropriate.

Usagi

 

[Thomas_White]

Original sin has an effect on the spirituality of humans. In his Confessions, St. Augustine explains it this way: Prior to the fall, Adam had free will. However, God commanded Adam not to eat fruit from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil). Adam disobeyed. As a result, Adam and all of his descendants were punished. Their free will was corrupted, and their moral discernment was impaired by weakness of the flesh. Everafter, humans, driven by the weakness of the flesh, could only choose among vices. Original Sin is overcome by the grace of baptism, but the flesh remains weak. It is only through the power of grace that humans are able to avoid sin.

This teaching begins as an allegory, but the message contains truth. The temptations of the flesh (understood as involving far more than sexual activity) are often clearly biological, but the inclinations of the flesh are not limited to any particular set of humans. Whether or not homosexuality is an hereditary trait is not, I believe, a question yet settled by science. But even if homosexuality were exclusively a hereditary trait, a homosexually-inclined person would be no more compelled to commit homosexual acts than a heterosexual person would be compelled to engage in fornication or adultery. The Church defines these actions as sinful, and I don’t believe there is an argument that would get around it.

 

[cfauster]

Here’s something from the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science edited by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research (ADSIR), operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome:

… the whole human race bears the marks of the sin since its origins…That original violation has consequences that pervade all human life, and to which every human sin perpetrated in history, contributes in some way…The fact that the created world has been entrusted to human beings increases their greatness and responsibility even at a bio-ecological level. Not only have humans a meaning by themselves, but they also assign a precise meaning to the reality around them. Their uniqueness stems from their capacity to produce culture based on projectuality and symbolism more than from the degree of their morphological evolution or from the associated results. The greatness of human beings within God’s general project over creation depends on their capacity to recognize their Creator, on their freedom and the calling they received to conform to Jesus Christ, the archetype and the true image of all human beings. Because human beings are in charge of developing the creation of a world that God wanted as evolving, they must take care of it and drive the evolution of the natural resources in all their potential, in praise to God and for the sake of all their fellow creatures.

Here’s the link to the article: inters.org/origin-nature-of-man

 

[MrSnaith]

Original Sin inclines us to sin.

These days, we know that many of the things that traditionally have been understood to be sinful have a biological/natural basis within the person. Individuals can be more prone to anger or getting drunk, for example, simply because that is how their brain works. Even more modern issues of morality, like homosexuality, often assume a possible biological/natural basis.

The perplexity/question then is this: Knowing what we do from science – how our inclinations to act sinful are often thanks to biological factors and conditions – what do we mean when we say that Original Sin is the cause of our inclination to sin? Do we mean that Original Sin affected our biology? This would be an interesting claim, since humans were put in a world that already had discrepancies in nature, even before the Fall: tornadoes, earthquakes, and thorns all existed before humans arrived on the scene. It would seem out of place for humans to exist on a different level in a world that already had these conditions.

So what then of original sin? Perhaps could it mean it is a lack of the ability to integrate our biological selves with a greater inclination to love God?