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

[GEddie]

Howdy,

I know it took me a while to chime in, but here goes.

OS weakens the human soul, making it incapable of full command of “its” body. This makes the body subject to both mortality and concupiscence.

Without OS, neither would be an issue. Our souls would command every cell of our bodies, in the same way that we now command our limbs. But because our soul is weakened, our bodies are, in effect and to an extent in mutiny, with destructive effects on both soul and body.

By now, our bodies bear the genetic corruption of thousands of generations in that state, and so a restoration, in the original body, to the former perfection of life cannot be had. Spiritual resurrection, to the pneumatikon soma, is needed.

ICXC NIKA

 

[OneSheep]

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?

Hi catholic1seeks,

You may consider the possibility of a begged question.

Is the human inclined to sin?

Here is my observation: The human is inclined to want autonomy. The human is inclined to want to be in control and procreate. The human is inclined to want status, and want territory in the form of land and wealth. The human is inclined to self-protection, protection of what he or she loves, and desires justice. The human is inclined to punish those who carry out what they see as injustice. The human is inclined to love their friends and hate their enemy. The human is inclined to have empathy and to form a conscience.

All of these inclinations are natural, and nearly all of them, with the added factor of blindness or ignorance, can lead to sin. Does this indicate an inclination to sin, or does it simply mean that there is a possibility of sinful (hurtful) behavior given the human condition?

Let me add one little note here, another possibility: If a person is caught up in some sort of addiction, he may very well perceive that the human is inclined to sin. It may be the words of despair to say that we are “so inclined”. Addiction, however, does not indicate inclination, it again only demonstrates possibility. The human’s brain enjoys certain stimuli, so the possibility of addiction is there. It is not an inclination, for the human is not inclined to suffer.

I’m talking anthropology, and evolved traits…

God Bless

 

[RCCB]

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?

The question that is rarely asked is whether human nature as we understanding it in the light of biology and science was in some way functionally and perceptionally different before the Fall? For one can have little doubt that God would prefer a pure nature that did not sin rather than one subject to the corruptions that human nature under natural law is heir to. If human nature is subject to sin, than the divine nature must have been of a different moral order unknown and yet to be understood by us today in spite of any religious claims to the contrary.

If by the Fall we are prone to ‘Sin’ that means there is a corruption of both will and insight into the nature of moral conduct that requires correction! Quoting from essay, Illusions of Reason:

“Raising up within the man a newly Enlightened heart and holy spirit, realigning his moral compass; correcting human nature with a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries. Thus freed from the corruptions of concupiscence that natural law is heir to, is man created in the image and likeness of His Creator.”

 

[ynotzap]

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?

Original sin did not affect our biology, but it did affect our psychology (the study of the soul) Sin has to do with moral ethics, sin has nothing to do with biology. The problem of sin lies in the mind. Under the influence of the physical drives, the human mind is influenced to follow the biological drives against the rule of right reasoning. Instead of reasoning dictating the proper conduct of action, it succumbs to the biological influence, then feelings reign over reason which is contrary to rational human nature. This is the strong affect that original sin had on humanity, we need God’s grace to establish the rule of right reasoning on our conduct, since our minds are spiritual in nature, the brain is one thing, the mind is another.

 

[fhansen]

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?

It’s sort of up to you. Are you willing to believe that nothing is sinful in the end, no matter how heinous an act it may be? Are you wiling to maintain that humans are not morally responsible beings, that we should not be held accountable for our actions because, what the heck, we just can’t help ourselves?

 

[RCCB]

Original sin did not affect our biology, but it did affect our psychology (the study of the soul) Sin has to do with moral ethics, sin has nothing to do with biology. The problem of sin lies in the mind. .

I must disagree. The Fall must have been a corruption of both mind and body as the ongoing pedophile priest scandals within the church make all too clear. So long are there is a force of ‘biology’ within human nature but not under the control of that nature, and able to dictate to that mind, bypassing all moral sense, as individual we are not sovereign over our own being and personal morality is compromised. The inheritance of the Fall is thus being prisoner to concupiscence, and what greater stain on the soul could there be?

 

[ynotzap]

I must disagree. The Fall must have been a corruption of both mind and body as the ongoing pedophile priest scandals within the church make all too clear. So long are there is a force of ‘biology’ within human nature but not under the control of that nature, and able to dictate to that mind, bypassing all moral sense, as individual we are not sovereign over our own being and personal morality is compromised. The inheritance of the Fall is thus being prisoner to concupiscence, and what greater stain on the soul could there be?

It is true that the body experiences corruption and death, but that was a consequence of sin. But as stated, sin lies in the soul, in the mind and will, the powers of the soul. Grace was lost when Adam sinned, which caused the lose of the mind,or reason ability to control and direct the passions of man. Another effect was the human will was weakened, so that it could not conquer the passions of the flesh. Also the mind of man was darkened to the truth. The affects of original sin is not sin itself, but a leaning, or proclivity towards sin. As far as pedophilia goes, men are affected, as all men are where the passions have not been conquered by the inflluence of sanctifying grace, a life of grace. There may even be some mental illness involved. Sin does not lie in the biological, the drives of passions are natural, physical, it’s the lack of rational, spiritual control that is the problem.The missing element is sanctifying grace that come from Jesus Christ, through His Holy Spirit. This grace reinstates man to his position before the fall, but we are still subjected to the punishment of physical death, and corruption of the body. Although some saints have lived very holy lives that even their bodies were not corrupted, but they still died. We are not totally helpless, but weakened with the lack of grace. We still have free will, and are responsible for our choices. To condemn us because we have no choice is fatalism, and not of God who is merciful and just.

 

[RCCB]

It is true that the body experiences corruption and death, but that was a consequence of sin. But as stated, sin lies in the soul, in the mind and will, the powers of the soul. Grace was lost when Adam sinned, which caused the lose of the mind,or reason ability to control and direct the passions of man. Another effect was the human will was weakened, so that it could not conquer the passions of the flesh. Also the mind of man was darkened to the truth. The affects of original sin is not sin itself, but a leaning, or proclivity towards sin. As far as pedophilia goes, men are affected, as all men are where the passions have not been conquered by the inflluence of sanctifying grace, a life of grace. There may even be some mental illness involved. Sin does not lie in the biological, the drives of passions are natural, physical, it’s the lack of rational, spiritual control that is the problem.The missing element is sanctifying grace that come from Jesus Christ, through His Holy Spirit. This grace reinstates man to his position before the fall, but we are still subjected to the punishment of physical death, and corruption of the body. Although some saints have lived very holy lives that even their bodies were not corrupted, but they still died. We are not totally helpless, but weakened with the lack of grace. We still have free will, and are responsible for our choices. To condemn us because we have no choice is fatalism, and not of God who is merciful and just.

Sin is an expression of wrong conduct first and foremost. The Fall resulted from an act of disobedience to a yet unknown, unrevealed command of God. The very first Law. And while wrong conduct may starts in the mind. Moral will arbitrates between the two. And the ‘sanctifying’ element that would strengthen that will and defeat the potential for evil within the human condition, the very promise of the Incarnation, remains missing. So long as human nature remains a prisoner to a concupiscent lower nature, the soul is no fit home for the spirit of Christ and the idea of holiness or righteousness before God remains a dishonest human pretension. The illusions of false teaching.

 

[ynotzap]

Sin is an expression of wrong conduct first and foremost. The Fall resulted from an act of disobedience to a yet unknown, unrevealed command of God. The very first Law. And while wrong conduct may starts in the mind. Moral will arbitrates between the two. And the ‘sanctifying’ element that would strengthen that will and defeat the potential for evil within the human condition, the very promise of the Incarnation, remains missing. So long as human nature remains a prisoner to a concupiscent lower nature, the soul is no fit home for the spirit of Christ and the idea of holiness or righteousness before God remains a dishonest human pretension. The illusions of false teaching.

Jesus Christ’s mission was to redeem man, and to establish a relationship that was lost with the first sin of pride and disobedience. It was to redeem us from the works of Satan, a spiritual reality. With the fall of man, he lost of the gifts of integrity, and sanctifying grace, and the relationship with God. Adam inherited the sin and it’s consequences for humanity. Now man became captive to Satan’s power (angelic) Man in this weakened condition succumbs to this angelic power which pits itself against God and His creation, by God’s permission. For this reason, man must be born again of the Spirit. He must renounce Satan and all his works, become an adopted child of God, now having the power to wage spiritual warfare with the Enemy. In turning to Christ, and turning away from sin, he is set free from Satan’s dominion but still must battle his inclinations and weaknesses which Satan will still take advantage of. Now we have the weapons through Christ to win this battle, to live a life of virtue and not vice, to live a life of holiness, not sin.

 

[cfauster]

Continuing from some of my posts earlier in this thread, I think sin is a big problem, and I think we need redemption, but if original sin is a challenge to understand, original innocence (beyond invincible ignorance) is perhaps even harder to imagine.

I don’t agree with everything in the following, but I do think it has something to offer:

“The biblical accounts of creation and promise are themselves struggling to
bring about just such a radical reconfiguration at the roots of the human longing
for perfection. The ancient narratives of a promising God, the God who always
opens up a new future whenever dead-ends appear, encourage us to move
beyond nostalgic obsession with a lost Eden, and outward into an open future
that relocates the essential domain of perfection in the domain of the “up-ahead,”
in the direction of a creation yet to come. The Bible’s eschatological orientation
arouses hope for an unprecedented future, even as it deflects our nostalgic pining
for a paradisal past … what I have said here in no way entails a diminishment of
a sense of sin, or of the need for genuine remorse for the evil humans bring
about, and hence of our need for redemption from sin. In fact, just the opposite is
the case…”

This comes from an essay by John Haught in the Nov. 2005 issue of New Theology Review.

 

[RCCB]

Jesus Christ’s mission was to redeem man, and to establish a relationship that was lost with the first sin of pride and disobedience. It was to redeem us from the works of Satan, a spiritual reality. With the fall of man, he lost of the gifts of integrity, and sanctifying grace, and the relationship with God. Adam inherited the sin and it’s consequences for humanity. Now man became captive to Satan’s power (angelic) Man in this weakened condition succumbs to this angelic power which pits itself against God and His creation, by God’s permission. For this reason, man must be born again of the Spirit. He must renounce Satan and all his works, become an adopted child of God, now having the power to wage spiritual warfare with the Enemy. In turning to Christ, and turning away from sin, he is set free from Satan’s dominion but still must battle his inclinations and weaknesses which Satan will still take advantage of. Now we have the weapons through Christ to win this battle, to live a life of virtue and not vice, to live a life of holiness, not sin.

I fully accept Jesus mission, but I have to wonder if that mission didn’t fail or has even started yet. For if all who claimed to be of Christ were holy, the world would be a very different place, founded upon a moral ideal that is of God and not philosophy.

For how are we redeemed from sin and made holy when that sin is embedded within human nature itself, and not subject to prayer, sacrament or ceremony? Such redemption would require a correction to human nature itself. While impossible in the ‘light’ of tradition, yet anyone prepared to study outside the catholic theological box and study non canonical texts, particularly the Dead Sea scrolls and Nag Hammadi library can find many suggestions to support that very idea. For if there was a Fall then we must be ‘Raised’ up. Think ‘first’ Resurrection. And if that first disobedience came from within a spiritual union between man and woman, should not our ‘return’ to grace come from a renewed obedience to that first command?

At a time when marriage is under such strain, rethinking that traditional, flawed union is soon to become an imperative. And a union founded upon Divine Law rather than natural law must be what the search for God is. And most likely it will take place outside a church unable to question itself.