Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

It’s important to not think of God as a bigger version of oneself. Independent philosophical considerations are irrelevant when compared to revelation. Basically, the argument goes: “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it”. That is backwards, though. In Islam, we don’t believe that carnal reasoning trumps revelation; revelation trumps it in every case.

It comes down to pride, in my view. Sin has been gutted and man no longer thinks his sin is a big deal. It makes us uncomfortable, so we try to explain it away with our own points and counter-points; and on and on it goes. None of that is how meaningful theology is done. Theology is only as good as its obediance to Allah’s revelation (which, I believe, is the Qur’an).

If philosophy and reason do not tell us accurate things about God, does that mean that they are fundamentally corrupt? If so, how would we know this if we employ them to verify that they are in fact corrupt? If they are not intrinsically corrupt, and reason and revelation conflict, does this mean truth is not unified? Why, or how, do we know that revelation always trumps reason, if we use reason to make that statement in the first place?

I believe that truth is unified, and that reason and revelation will lead us to the same conclusions.

I do not think my argument is “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it.” Rather, my argument is: “If our understanding of the afterlife conflicts with God’s omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence, then our understanding is wrong.”

I agree with you that many people do not take sin seriously. However, I do not think there is any possible sin serious enough to merit endless punishment. Why not a few billion or even trillions of years of agonizing torment? Why wouldn’t that be enough? Even if you killed everyone in the world, and were tortured mercilessly in flames for 1,000 years for each person, that would still be only about 7e^12 years of torture, certainly less than infinity.

 

[drac16]

Thank you for your insights into the difficulties of this discussion and I’m sure what is more profound than I currently understand. I agree about revelation and the point you make regarding it. I await heaven, and not hell, because I try to be good as much as I can. Nothing will substitute for actually being in paradise!

My only question to you – and if the Qu’ran answers this philosophical dilemma Aristotle called “discovery” then do relate. There is the sense that we sometimes “do understand”, but struggle to articulate with language for the sake of others. Reasons abound: we make friends, we learn from our own struggle with finding the right words, we enter Life In Christ by drawing parallels between what he described in his parables and our own experiences, we are moved to silence by our realization that God has already revealed the answer we need, and said it far more eloquently in words and signs, etc.

Thank you again in advance, and retroactively for your contribution to the topic.

You’re welcome. I’m glad I could contribute.

Of course, human language is limited when it’s used to describe higher truths. That is one of the reasons why prophets have come; so that we may see, on a practical level, how spirituality is lived out. God knows what I mean to say even before I say it. The Qur’an says “And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein” [surah 50:16] (Allah is using the royal We, as is often the case).

 

[drac16]

If philosophy and reason do not tell us accurate things about God, does that mean that they are fundamentally corrupt? If so, how would we know this if we employ them to verify that they are in fact corrupt? If they are not intrinsically corrupt, and reason and revelation conflict, does this mean truth is not unified? Why, or how, do we know that revelation always trumps reason, if we use reason to make that statement in the first place?

I believe that truth is unified, and that reason and revelation will lead us to the same conclusions.

I do not think my argument is “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it.” Rather, my argument is: “If our understanding of the afterlife conflicts with God’s omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence, then our understanding is wrong.”

I agree with you that many people do not take sin seriously. However, I do not think there is any possible sin serious enough to merit endless punishment. Why not a few billion or even trillions of years of agonizing torment? Why wouldn’t that be enough? Even if you killed everyone in the world, and were tortured mercilessly in flames for 1,000 years for each person, that would still be only about 7e^12 years of torture, certainly less than infinity.

I don’t believe philosophy and/or natural reasoning is necessarily corrupt-- rather, I believe that it’s inferior to theology. There have been some excellent philosophers throughout history, but, from an Islamic perspective, they were good philosophers because they affirmed Islamic theology. In other words, their theology was the measuring stick by which they deciphered wrong from right.

If I commit rape, it may only take 15 minutes to do. However, the punishment I get should be much more than a 15 minute punishment. Because of how severe the crime of rape is, it deserves a severe punishment, like say, 20 years [or more] in prison. Because of how evil rape is, even though I was only breaking the law for 15 minutes, I deserve to be locked away for much longer.

Such is the case with living a life of sin. Even though persons live for a relatively short amount of time, the crime of sinning against God is severe enough to warrant damnation. He’s worthy of more praise then we could ever give. We could never number all the blessings He gives. Let me finish by saying that, categorically, I don’t get any joy from believing that certain persons deserve to go to Hell. I don’t want people to go there.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Such is the case with living a life of sin. Even though persons live for a relatively short amount of time, the crime of sinning against God is severe enough to warrant damnation. He’s worthy of more praise then we could ever give. We could never number all the blessings He gives.

Christ, who is the living and loving God of us all, wants all to be saved. But he knows some do not want to love him and therefore do not want to be saved. So he accommodates the God who wants to save them, wants so much to save them that he will himself die on a cross to save them. There is no greater charity in the world than that. So when Christ tells us that we must choose between him and hell, he is making clear what the alternative to him is, and he is making clear that by our actions and our refusal to repent we have chosen eternal hell over eternal heaven.

Eternal suffering is not pointless. It is a choice, but a dreadful and stupid one

 

[tonyrey]

If philosophy and reason do not tell us accurate things about God, does that mean that they are fundamentally corrupt? If so, how would we know this if we employ them to verify that they are in fact corrupt? If they are not intrinsically corrupt, and reason and revelation conflict, does this mean truth is not unified? Why, or how, do we know that revelation always trumps reason, if we use reason to make that statement in the first place?

I believe that truth is unified, and that reason and revelation will lead us to the same conclusions.

I do not think my argument is “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it.” Rather, my argument is: “If our understanding of the afterlife conflicts with God’s omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence, then our understanding is wrong.”

I agree with you that many people do not take sin seriously. However, I do not think there is any possible sin serious enough to merit endless punishment. Why not a few billion or even trillions of years of agonizing torment? Why wouldn’t that be enough? Even if you killed everyone in the world, and were tortured mercilessly in flames for 1,000 years for each person, that would still be only about 7e^12 years of torture, certainly less than infinity.

PC, you persist in your presumption that endless punishment is inflicted by God. Your argument collapses once you understand that even in this life many people make themselves unnecessarily miserable because they think too much about themselves and not enough about others. Most of the suffering in the world is caused by pride, envy, greed, ambition, vanity, jealousy, hatred, lust for power and lack of compassion. These are vices that sooner or later incur their own punishment by making such people detestable and isolated. Hell begins in this world if we fall into the trap of worshipping ourselves, not having time for others and making excuses for neglecting them. How long it lasts depends entirely on us and there is no obvious reason why it shouldn’t last forever if we reject God. Either we have free will or we don’t. If we do there is nothing to stop us doing what we like as long as we like whenever we like - provided of course we choose to live solely for ourselves in a kingdom of our own, very satisfying of course but also very frustrating because the more freedom we have the more we want and there are limits to what we can have even in Hell! Or do you disagree?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PC, you persist in your presumption that endless punishment is inflicted by God. Your argument collapses once you understand that even in this life many people make themselves unnecessarily miserable because they think too much about themselves and not enough about others. Most of the suffering in the world is caused by pride, envy, greed, ambition, vanity, jealousy, hatred, lust for power and lack of compassion. These are vices that sooner or later incur their own punishment by making such people detestable and isolated. Hell begins in this world if we fall into the trap of worshipping ourselves, not having time for others and making excuses for neglecting them. How long it lasts depends entirely on us and there is no obvious reason why it shouldn’t last forever if we reject God. Either we have free will or we don’t. If we do there is nothing to stop us doing what we like as long as we like whenever we like - provided of course we choose to live solely for ourselves in a kingdom of our own, very satisfying of course but also very frustrating because the more freedom we have the more we want and there are limits to what we can have even in Hell! Or do you disagree?

I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that it is irrelevant to my argument whether God inflicts punishment externally or merely enables self-punishment. The crucial element: the existence of the souls in hell is the sole and direct activity of God at each moment.

Are you saying that the point of hell is to allow some people to fulfill their evil desires to an infinite extent, even though those desires are self-destructive? But, you think God will miraculously and endlessly prevent them from totally destroying themselves because??? This view of hell seems to be an acknowledgement that a life of sin is “satisfying.” I disagree. Sin results in nothing but misery for all involved. The “pleasure” of sin exists only in the mind of the sinner, before the sin is actually committed. It is just a mirage. Is hell this kind of endless mirage?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This view of hell seems to be an acknowledgement that a life of sin is “satisfying.” I disagree. Sin results in nothing but misery for all involved. The “pleasure” of sin exists only in the mind of the sinner, before the sin is actually committed. It is just a mirage. Is hell this kind of endless mirage?

There must be something satisfying about a life of sin for anyone to choose such a life. No?

The question is not whether the life of sin is satisfying, but whether it is a life falsely lived.

As Christ said, the devil is always a liar and a murderer. Whatever satisfaction is derived from lies to others or to oneself, this satisfaction is delusional. That is why Scripture tells us that the fool in his heart says there is no God. He has only fooled (deceived) himself and fulfilled his self-chosen destiny as a tool of the devil.

 

[arte]

There is no reason why those who have not sinned should go to Hell. The Catechism states that original sin does not entail a personal fault.
We cannot be guilty for the sins of others but we are adversely affected.
If in doubt remember God’s infinite mercy.

You wanted proof from the Magisterium that children beyond the age of reason can go to hell because I showed you proof that the Church teaches this. I provided proof from the Magisterium that souls with original sin alone go to hell. The only souls with original sin alone that I can think of are babies. At a stretch it could include adults who have never been baptised and die without a mortal sin. However, my proof from the Magisterium with its follow on comments by Catholic authors was obviously aimed at babies and not adults. I agree with your interpretation of the situation but I do not understand your comment: “but we are adversely affected”. The Magisterium should not lead to different interpretations but it obviously does judging by the Catholic authors’ follow on comments and by people debating here. I do not believe in original sin and hell. Therefore for me the whole situation of original sin, baptism and levels of punishment in hell etc is null and void. Honestly, I cannot think of the reasoning behind anything other than the souls of all babies go directly to heaven; period. We don’t need the Magisterium, Church teaching or Catholic authors’ interpretations of the situation.

 

[arte]

On the point about babies dying in original sin:

The Magisterium infallibly teaches (Florence, Lyons II) that those who die in original sin alone go to Hell. But the Magisterium has not decided the question as to whether unbaptized infants die in original sin.

My interpretation is that the souls who die in original sin alone are those adults who died unrepentant from the actual mortal sin of omission of never having found sanctifying grace in this life, despite ample opportunity. So only those guilty of some type of actual mortal sin go to Hell. Infants are not guilty, so I believe they are given the state of grace before death.

“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7.

“For God forbid that all children, of whom daily so great a multitude die, would perish, but that also for these, the merciful God, who wishes no one to perish, has procured some remedy unto salvation…” Pope Innocent III, Denzinger, n. 410.

“Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.” Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, n. 22.

“Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, n. 10

I have just realised Ron that you may be the Catholic author that I quoted from in a recent post. Am I correct? The post was: Extract from the website below; author Ronald L. Conte Jr., Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator. Again, this article is very interesting. The author comes across as a very conservative Catholic and his article is aimed at a Catholic priest, Fr. Ryan Erlenbush who he accuses of teaching heresy.
“The Magisterium has NEVER taught that little children who die without formal Baptism certainly die in original sin alone. The faithful may adhere to the pious opinion, based on faith in the Mercy of God, that these little children (prenatals, infants, young children, who die at that age) receive a baptism of blood or of desire in this life, so that they die in a state of grace. Thus their eternal and final destination will be Heaven, not Hell”.

“The teaching of the Church on salvation can be summed up in two assertions:
All those who die in a state of grace will have eternal happiness in Heaven.
All those who die in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin, or in a state of original sin only, will have eternal unhappiness in Hell”.
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/heresy-on-the-limbo-of-hell/

Now, I’m totally confused!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Both “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire” seem to me to be contingent upon volition. But, infants and “prenatals” are not capable of volition, therefore they cannot possible have access to either, per se

Now, you could say that some infants who are directly murdered in the name of Jesus are martyrs by proxy (due to the actions of their parents). For instance, if someone were going to execute a Christian’s child if the Christian refused to deny Christ, then I could see a good argument in support of that child’s salvation, since the parent chose martyrdom for the child. However, this situation does not seem similar to the millions of aborted babies, children who die from childhood diseases or malnutrition, etc.

“Baptism of desire” seems to be possible, again, if the parent desires baptism for the child but it just so happens to die before that time. This would seem to be a relatively rare occurrence as well, in comparison to the majority of the world’s parents who are not Christian and sadly lose their children for whatever reason.

Are you saying that the children who die without benefit of water baptism are saved via baptism of blood or desire because God knows they would desire baptism or martyrdom if given the chance? If so, you imply Molinism and open up a big can of fascinating worms.

A baptism of desire requires knowledge of what one is desiring (even if it is implicit) and volition. So prenatals and the youngest children would be excluded. And there is no magisterial teaching in support of a baptism of desire by proxy. No to the can of worms.

The Church has never taught that a baptism of blood requires volition. nor that it is limited to those who are martyred for Christ. The Church does teach that we need baptism to be saved. So I would conclude that Mary’s Immaculate Conception includes a baptism of blood. She was sanctified by the blood of Christ, without water or desire. So a baptism of blood does not require martyrdom. Saint John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb, so he must also have received a baptism of blood.

Also, it stands to reason that the universal salvific will of God must provide some path of salvation for prenatals who die in the womb. And they cannot receive a baptism of water or desire, so they must receive a baptism of blood. Otherwise, either the universal salvific will would be thwarted or the teaching that baptism is necessary would be false.

It is still an open question. But I see no other solution to the dilemma of prenatals who die in the womb than a baptism of blood prior to death.

 

[Good_Fella]

A baptism of desire requires knowledge of what one is desiring (even if it is implicit) and volition. So prenatals and the youngest children would be excluded. And there is no magisterial teaching in support of a baptism of desire by proxy. No to the can of worms.

The Church has never taught that a baptism of blood requires volition. nor that it is limited to those who are martyred for Christ. The Church does teach that we need baptism to be saved. So I would conclude that Mary’s Immaculate Conception includes a baptism of blood.** She was sanctified by the blood of Christ, without water or desire. **So a baptism of blood does not require martyrdom. Saint John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb, so he must also have received a baptism of blood.

Also, it stands to reason that the universal salvific will of God must provide some path of salvation for prenatals who die in the womb. And they cannot receive a baptism of water or desire, so they must receive a baptism of blood. Otherwise, either the universal salvific will would be thwarted or the teaching that baptism is necessary would be false.

It is still an open question. But I see no other solution to the dilemma of prenatals who die in the womb than a baptism of blood prior to death.

I can’t see any other solution either. A just and merciful God would surely provide a path of salvation for prenatals who die in the womb and have never committed any personal sins that have to be forgiven. Christ died for all. Nor did he die in vain, having merited the grace of justification for everyone by his blood.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[sagimore]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I think we all have a hole, we can fill that hole with doing for others. We can stop making it about us and making it about others. An atheist will tell you this is what makes them feel content more than anything else.

When we turn to other things to fill that hole we experience wrath. I can do or not do- I can choose heaven or hell in the same way. It is a choice and not a punishment imo. I dont see hell as suffering as the physical torment but the mental torment we face here on earth already when we search for other means to feel complete.

God wrath is our choice not his.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. I think we all have a hole, we can fill that hole with doing for others. We can stop making it about us and making it about others. An atheist will tell you this is what makes them feel content more than anything else.

When we turn to other things to fill that hole we experience wrath. I can do or not do- I can choose heaven or hell in the same way. It is a choice and not a punishment imo. I dont see hell as suffering as the physical torment but the mental torment we face here on earth already when we search for other means to feel complete.

God wrath is our choice not his.

Very good. Atheism is the denial of the natural desire to know God. Hell follows.

 

[jmcrae]

If philosophy and reason do not tell us accurate things about God, does that mean that they are fundamentally corrupt? If so, how would we know this if we employ them to verify that they are in fact corrupt? If they are not intrinsically corrupt, and reason and revelation conflict, does this mean truth is not unified? Why, or how, do we know that revelation always trumps reason, if we use reason to make that statement in the first place?

I believe that truth is unified, and that reason and revelation will lead us to the same conclusions.

I do not think my argument is “If I can’t understand it [Hell], God must not be saying it.” Rather, my argument is: “If our understanding of the afterlife conflicts with God’s omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence, then our understanding is wrong.”

I agree with you that many people do not take sin seriously. However, I do not think there is any possible sin serious enough to merit endless punishment. Why not a few billion or even trillions of years of agonizing torment? Why wouldn’t that be enough? Even if you killed everyone in the world, and were tortured mercilessly in flames for 1,000 years for each person, that would still be only about 7e^12 years of torture, certainly less than infinity.

The reason there is a 25 year sentence for murder is not because we think 25 years is sufficient punishment but rather because we’re hoping you’ll die before the 25 years has passed. We want you to never experience freedom again. But if you have eternal life, and there is a finite term in Hell, then it defeats the purpose of the sentence - that you must never be free again.

 

[Michael19682]

The reason there is a 25 year sentence for murder is not because we think 25 years is sufficient punishment but rather because we’re hoping you’ll die before the 25 years has passed. We want you to never experience freedom again. But if you have eternal life, and there is a finite term in Hell, then it defeats the purpose of the sentence - that you must never be free again.

The criminal justice system in most but not all cases of punishment is a mockery of Christianity. By the logic you employ, hell is a mockery of freewill. I presume your post was sarcasm epitomized?

 

[tonyrey]

You wanted proof from the Magisterium that children beyond the age of reason can go to hell because I showed you proof that the Church teaches this. I provided proof from the Magisterium that souls with original sin alone go to hell.

Please cite the exact words.

I agree with your interpretation of the situation but I do not understand your comment: “but we are adversely affected”.

We are adversely affected by our ancestors’ sins because we live in a morally polluted society and find it difficult to regard everyone as our brothers and sisters. We tend to be biased in favour of ourselves and our own ideas. We don’t notice this because this is the way most of us have been brought up since early childhood. Life is a rat race in which the law of the jungle dominates society. Even the democratic principle of majority rule is often distorted into the neglect and persecution of the minority. Evil is insidious because it is often concealed under the cloak of doing good for “the people”- like the legalism of the Pharisees who exploited “sinners” to exalt themselves.

Arthur Koestler believed history reveals “a streak of insanity” in the human race but he was mistaken. It is the effect of original sin that has vitiated personal relationships and culminated in crimes like Cain’s murder of his brother. The role of the Devil also has to be taken into account. Diabolical atrocities like the Holocaust cannot be explained entirely by human pride and malevolence. The horrific reality of evil is dominates the blood-stained history of mankind.To attribute it to ignorance, weakness or mental illness is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. There is nothing worse than the Nazis’ cold-blooded, premeditated, systematic and carefully calculated murder of millions of innocent men, women and children for years on end - and all the other massacres throughout history and throughout the world. Hell has existed on earth and it continues to do so until this very moment. There is no obvious reason why it should end at death for those who choose to live for themselves as they have done in this life. A happy ending for all is a fairy story with no foundation in fact whereas there is overwhelming evidence of the effects of original sin which pervade human society.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We are adversely affected by our ancestors’ sins because we live in a morally polluted society and find it difficult to regard everyone as our brothers and sisters. We tend to be biased in favour of ourselves and our own ideas. We don’t notice this because this is the way most of us have been brought up since early childhood. Life is a rat race in which the law of the jungle dominates society. Even the democratic principle of majority rule is often distorted into the neglect and persecution of the minority. Evil is insidious because it is often concealed under the cloak of doing good for “the people”- like the legalism of the Pharisees who exploited “sinners” to exalt themselves. . .

Sin ripples through time, causing harm, inducing others to sin and, as you observe, distorting the social fabric, meant to be woven with bonds of love. That would be why there is a final judgement, when all has been done, every life lived and all is known. I imagine the transforming impact of the repentant sinner, praying for his victims, on how they are able to withstand and forge goodness from evil.

Graphic images are mocked and condemned for their attempts to portray the horror of hell to us, we who are so comfortable with our sins, taking the distortions of this world to be the norm for humanity, with the joy that lies at the centre of our relationship with God not only undreamed of, but even denied. It is best to focus on the good, to do God’s will for its own sake, but if nothing else, fear does lead one to re-evaluate one’s options.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We are adversely affected by our ancestors’ sins because we live in a morally polluted society and find it difficult to regard everyone as our brothers and sisters. We tend to be biased in favour of ourselves and our own ideas. We don’t notice this because this is the way most of us have been brought up since early childhood. Life is a rat race in which the law of the jungle dominates society. Even the democratic principle of majority rule is often distorted into the neglect and persecution of the minority. Evil is insidious because it is often concealed under the cloak of doing good for “the people”- like the legalism of the Pharisees who exploited “sinners” to exalt themselves.

Arthur Koestler believed history reveals “a streak of insanity” in the human race but he was mistaken. It is the effect of original sin that has vitiated personal relationships and culminated in crimes like Cain’s murder of his brother. The role of the Devil also has to be taken into account. Diabolical atrocities like the Holocaust cannot be explained entirely by human pride and malevolence. The horrific reality of evil is dominates the blood-stained history of mankind.To attribute it to ignorance, weakness or mental illness is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. There is nothing worse than the Nazis’ cold-blooded, premeditated, systematic and carefully calculated murder of millions of innocent men, women and children for years on end - and all the other massacres throughout history and throughout the world. Hell has existed on earth and it continues to do so until this very moment. There is no obvious reason why it should end at death for those who choose to live for themselves as they have done in this life. A happy ending for all is a fairy story with no foundation in fact whereas there is overwhelming evidence of the effects of original sin which pervade human society.

It is possible to acknowledge that human beings have an innate tendency to sin and choose self over and against God, without also believing that each human person is born actually guilty of a generic “sin.” The Latin concept of original sin is juridical: we are born in guilt and deserving of everlasting punishment. This contrasts with the Jewish concept of yetzer hara or the “evil inclination.” We all feel the internal temptation to benefit ourselves at the expense of others rather than the reverse. Much of the work of our lives is to fight and subdue this inclination so that we will become good human beings, obedient to God.

Tremendous evils like WWII, communism in the USSR, abortion, drug addiction, etc, can be explained as the cumulative effect of many selfish and evil people who are technologically advanced and politically organized. We can’t blame only Hitler, Stalin, or “Satan.” Many people had a part to play, and they chose evil. The spectacular evil arises from the common banal evil by way of superior organization and technology. Europeans have hated Jews for centuries, but it was only under the powerful political organization of a modern, technologically advanced Nazi dictatorship that their every-day bigotry and hatred could find expression on such a massive scale. Technology and organization magnify evil…but we can’t forget they also magnify good!!! The same technology that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki provides energy for millions of people to engage in productive internet arguments . The same planes which destroyed thousands of lives at the hands of religious fanatics also bring food, medicine, and supplies to desperate people across the world. They transport refugees to safety. They allow business people to forge productive relationships, and they carry our loved ones home from far off places.

 

[Aloysium]

It is possible to acknowledge that human beings have an innate tendency to sin and choose self over and against God, without also believing that each human person is born actually guilty of a generic “sin.” The Latin concept of original sin is juridical: we are born in guilt and deserving of everlasting punishment. This contrasts with the Jewish concept of yetzer hara or the “evil inclination.” We all feel the internal temptation to benefit ourselves at the expense of others rather than the reverse. Much of the work of our lives is to fight and subdue this inclination so that we will become good human beings, obedient to God… . . .

For those wanting to know what the Catholic teaches, I would recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

The following is an excerpt regarding this question, long but well worth the read for those interested:

I. WHERE SIN ABOUNDED, GRACE ABOUNDED ALL THE MORE

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.

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. 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”, 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 Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. the Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

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. 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.

There is too much to post here. It is best to go to the source.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Or, we can read Trent, an infallible ecumenical council.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session V - Celebrated on the seventeenth day of June, 1546 under Pope Paul III

Decree Concerning Original Sin

That our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God,[1] may, after the destruction of errors, remain integral and spotless in its purity, and that the Christian people may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine,[2] since that old serpent,[3] the everlasting enemy of the human race, has, among the many evils with which the Church of God is in our times disturbed, stirred up also not only new but also old dissensions concerning original sin and its remedy, the holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding, wishing now to reclaim the erring and to strengthen the wavering, and following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, of the holy Fathers, of the most approved councils, as well as the judgment and unanimity of the Church herself, ordains, confesses and declares these things concerning original sin:

1. If anyone does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God in paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice in which he had been constituted, and through the offense of that prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of god, and thus death with which God had previously threatened him,[4] and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil,[5] and that the entire Adam through that offense of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,[6] let him be anathema.

When one “loses justice” one becomes actually guilty.

1. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,[7] and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
   By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.[8]

The “loss of justice” (actual guilt) is commuted to all people, everywhere.

1. If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11]

Whence that declaration:
Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;[12] and that other:
As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[13]

The actual guilt of original sin is transferred by propagation, and there is no remedy except Catholic baptism.

1. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.

For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16] For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]

Infants are actually guilty of original sin just by virtue of being human. Baptism is the only cure, and absolutely necessary to remove the guilt. To say otherwise is to be cursed by the Church.

cont…