Is Humanity "Fundamentally Flawed"?

[JRKH]

A poster in another thread asking if a one world religion would be good or bad made this comment.

Because humanity is fundamentally flawed!

I have some trouble with this…Since we are taught that we are made in God’s “Image and likeness”, how can be be fundamentally flawed…

I understand about, but to me that seems to be something added into our make-up…not necessarily “fundamental” to our make-up…

what do others think…

Peace
James

 

[Garyjohn2]

Frundamental:
Adjective:
Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.

Using that dictionary definition, I would say no, humanity is not fundamentally flawed.

Humanity IS flawed. However, our flaws do not form a necessary base or core of our being, nor is it of central importance. I’m sure it could be argued otherwise though!

What is humanity without struggling to overcome our weaknesses, and improving ourselves? In this light our flaws may be seen as a necessary core of our being. I guess it depends on your perspective. Good question!

 

[meltzerboy]

A poster in another thread asking if a one world religion would be good or bad made this comment.

I have some trouble with this…Since we are taught that we are made in God’s “Image and likeness”, how can be be fundamentally flawed…

I understand about, but to me that seems to be something added into our make-up…not necessarily “fundamental” to our make-up…

what do others think…

Peace
James

Wouldn’t the answer for Christians be yes because of the doctrine of original sin?

 

[Garyjohn2]

Wouldn’t the answer for Christians be yes because of the doctrine of original sin?

I’m not so sure. Christians would say “yes, humanity is flawed” because of original sin. But fundamentally flawed? Is it a critically important part of our nature, or just an accidental by-product of our nature?

 

[sw85]

Wouldn’t the answer for Christians be yes because of the doctrine of original sin?

No. The notion of original sin as producing a corruption in human nature is a Protestant innovation, certainly not consistent with the Catholic conception of it. Our understanding of original sin is that it entailed the loss of supernatural grace, i.e., we fell from the heights to which God had elevated us back to the level of human nature. Protestants would say we fell from unspoiled human nature and became corrupted. Most Catholics don’t get it because (if the polls are to be believed) most Catholics are really Protestants, and because catechesis is and has been terrible in this country for decades.

The idea of anything be flawed by nature is simply a non sequitur. By definition whether or not something is flawed is “whether or not it fully instantiates its nature.” A flawed diamond is flawed because it includes something in it that isn’t a diamond, i.e., dirt. Likewise, a flawed person is a person who is flawed because he includes something that isn’t in his nature, i.e., sin. That’s what sin is – a perversion of our natures, a thing that is itself unnatural.

 

[meltzerboy]

No. The notion of original sin as producing a corruption in human nature is a Protestant innovation, certainly not consistent with the Catholic conception of it. Our understanding of original sin is that it entailed the loss of supernatural grace, i.e., we fell from the heights to which God had elevated us back to the level of human nature. Protestants would say we fell from unspoiled human nature and became corrupted. Most Catholics don’t get it because (if the polls are to be believed) most Catholics are really Protestants, and because catechesis is and has been terrible in this country for decades.

The idea of anything be flawed by nature is simply a non sequitur. By definition whether or not something is flawed is “whether or not it fully instantiates its nature.” A flawed diamond is flawed because it includes something in it that isn’t a diamond, i.e., dirt. Likewise, a flawed person is a person who is flawed because he includes something that isn’t in his nature, i.e., sin. That’s what sin is – a perversion of our natures, a thing that is itself unnatural.

Thanks for this explanation.

 

[MarcoPolo]

My :twocents:
I think one could argue “yes” if understood properly.*CCC#405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.*There is a damage here in the domain in creation. There doesn’t seem to be a need or a “hope” for the Second Coming, the New Jerusalem, if all is unblemished.*For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom. 8:19-23)*That all being said, the skeptic’s quote in the OP is kind of irrelevant to one world religion because creation and humanity are wounded with or without one faith.

 

[JRKH]

No. The notion of original sin as producing a corruption in human nature is a Protestant innovation, certainly not consistent with the Catholic conception of it. Our understanding of original sin is that it entailed the loss of supernatural grace, i.e., we fell from the heights to which God had elevated us back to the level of human nature. Protestants would say we fell from unspoiled human nature and became corrupted. Most Catholics don’t get it because (if the polls are to be believed) most Catholics are really Protestants, and because catechesis is and has been terrible in this country for decades.

The idea of anything be flawed by nature is simply a non sequitur. By definition whether or not something is flawed is “whether or not it fully instantiates its nature.” A flawed diamond is flawed because it includes something in it that isn’t a diamond, i.e., dirt. Likewise, a flawed person is a person who is flawed because he includes something that isn’t in his nature, i.e., sin. That’s what sin is – a perversion of our natures, a thing that is itself unnatural.

I like this.

Peace
James

 

[snarflemike]

Wouldn’t the answer for Christians be yes because of the doctrine of original sin?

No, because original sin was not in our original, fundamental makeup. We added it ourselves, later and to our everlasting chagrin.

 

[DCNBILL]

I would rather choose the word broken.

Something that is flawed somewhat indicates that it will always be so.

Something that is broken can always be fixed!

 

[philial]

A poster in another thread asking if a one world religion would be good or bad made this comment.

I have some trouble with this…Since we are taught that we are made in God’s “Image and likeness”, how can be be fundamentally flawed…

I understand about, but to me that seems to be something added into our make-up…not necessarily “fundamental” to our make-up…

what do others think…

Peace
James

A very fair point! True, when God beheld His creation He declared it ‘Good’, that is, as it ought to be & fit for purpose. So, obviously, not flawed.

But when we allowed sin into ourselves, it seems to have restructured us in some way. Perhaps corrupted us would be better, but to the core of our being, so we gained a ‘natural tendency to sin’. Now that seems pretty fundamental to me!

But, perhaps, we could reach an agreement if we say that we have mutated to ‘sub-natural’ sinfullness, but our true naturalness is God-made and good. And, very importantly, has been restored in Christ.

So… I’m happy to drop the fundamantal bit, but use it to express the experience of ourselves in our day to day life!

 

[bmullins]

Flawed? no. Fallen? Yes.

 

[fhansen]

Wouldn’t the answer for Christians be yes because of the doctrine of original sin?

Certain Protestant denominations would say so, the idea being that mans’ nature fell from a higher “natural” state to a lower one where his will was no longer in the least bit alive or strong enough to aspire to do the right thing.

Catholicism, OTOH, teaches that man fell from a supernaturally endowed state, where obedience to and relationship with God was essential for that state to remain in effect, to a “natural” state, the condition of man when the Spirit of God is no longer in command, so to speak, due to man’s rejecting His authority. In this state man’s will is weakened, crippled, his conscience dimmed or obscured, the image of God still present but buried, and so not totally corrupted, man’s will not completely destroyed.

The “flaw”-or injustice- of fallen man could be said to be, in simplest terms, this very separation from God that he’s now born with.

 

[grannymh]

A poster in another thread asking if a one world religion would be good or bad made this comment.

I have some trouble with this…Since we are taught that we are made in God’s “Image and likeness”, how can be be fundamentally flawed…

I understand about, but to me that seems to be something added into our make-up…not necessarily “fundamental” to our make-up…

what do others think…

Peace
James

It is our Spiritual Soul which makes us in the image of a transcendent Pure Spirit.
Because of our unique peerless nature, God calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love.

 

[JRKH]

A very fair point! True, when God beheld His creation He declared it ‘Good’, that is, as it ought to be & fit for purpose. So, obviously, not flawed.

I like this as I was in Quality Control for many years. “Fitness for use” was a common term. That which passed inspection was not “flawed”.

But **when we allowed sin into ourselves, it seems to have restructured us in some way. **Perhaps corrupted us would be better, but to the core of our being, so we gained a ‘natural tendency to sin’. Now that seems pretty fundamental to me!

Agree -
re: the bolded section…I have “toyed” with the idea of why God put the tree in the garden in the first place - and the thought occurred to me that He intended it for our use - but not then…We needed to grow - to evolve if you will to a point where we could handle what the tree of knowledge offered. Unfortunately it was used too soon and we are left with the fall out of that…(Just musings…)

But, perhaps, we could reach an agreement if we say that we have mutated to ‘sub-natural’ sinfullness, but our true naturalness is God-made and good. And, very importantly, has been restored in Christ.

But if it has been restored by Christ, why do we still consider oursleves “sub-natural” to use your term?

So… I’m happy to drop the fundamantal bit, but use it to express the experience of ourselves in our day to day life!

Understood…on another day I might not have given the comment a second thought, but today…Oh well…

Peace
James

 

[Uzziah1]

A poster in another thread asking if a one world religion would be good or bad made this comment.

I have some trouble with this…Since we are taught that we are made in God’s “Image and likeness”, how can be be fundamentally flawed…

I understand about, but to me that seems to be something added into our make-up…not necessarily “fundamental” to our make-up…

what do others think…

Peace
James

It is doctrine that we are fundamently flawed. It is called “the stain of Original Sin.” It makes it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that we be assisted by the grace of the cross. Without grace, we would sin in the case of every single moral decision.

 

[constantconvert]

No, because original sin was not in our original, fundamental makeup. We added it ourselves, later and to our everlasting chagrin.

It wasn’t in Adam and Eve’s original nature, but it is in ours. We are born with it. And even when original sin is removed by baptism, we still have an inclination toward sin. If that’s not a fundamental flaw, I don’t know what is.

 

[JRKH]

It is doctrine that we are fundamently flawed. It is called “the stain of Original Sin.” It makes it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that we be assisted by the grace of the cross. Without grace, we would sin in the case of every single moral decision.

Could you provide the source document that says we are “fundamentally flawed”? I would appreciate it.

Peace
James

 

[Uzziah1]

Could you provide the source document that says we are “fundamentally flawed”? I would appreciate it.

Peace
James

Hi, James.

Here is the problem with your request …

Are you asking about whether the WORDS “fundamentally flawed” appear anywhere in authoritative Catholic works?

Or, instead, are you asking if words were spoken in the tomes of authoritatively establish Catholic theology whose words have the RESULT of meaning, “Man is fundamentally flawed”?

Not much has been authoritatively established IN ENGLISH in Catholic theology, so that between us who speak English and the authoritative teaching there are always unauthoritative TRANSLATORS.

And very rarely has the Church, in the realm of theology, directly or indirectly said, except in matters of ritual, that, “YOU MUST USE THESE PARTICULAR WORDS.”

Therefore, there is an excellent chance that no authoritative source within the Roman Catholic Church actually asserts, or denies, that “MAN IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.”

And expressions indicating that we are fundamentally flawed without actually using the words “fundamentally flawed” will typically use language so different that between the words “fundamentally flawed” and what is actually said is a LOT of room for theology combatants to squirm and deny and never stop arguing.

Here, I think, is the closest you are going to come in authoritatively-established Catholic theology:

**Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. **

In the absence of grace, we have “dead souls.”

That’s pretty fundamentally flawed, don’t you think?

 

[JRKH]

Hi, James.

Here is the problem with your request …

Are you asking about whether the WORDS “fundamentally flawed” appear anywhere in authoritative Catholic works?

Or, instead, are you asking if words were spoken in the tomes of authoritatively establish Catholic theology whose words have the RESULT of meaning, “Man is fundamentally flawed”?

Not much has been authoritatively established IN ENGLISH in Catholic theology, so that between us who speak English and the authoritative teaching there are always unauthoritative TRANSLATORS.

And very rarely has the Church, in the realm of theology, directly or indirectly said, except in matters of ritual, that, “YOU MUST USE THESE PARTICULAR WORDS.”

Therefore, there is an excellent chance that no authoritative source within the Roman Catholic Church actually asserts, or denies, that “MAN IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED.”

And expressions indicating that we are fundamentally flawed without actually using the words “fundamentally flawed” will typically use language so different that between the words “fundamentally flawed” and what is actually said is a LOT of room for theology combatants to squirm and deny and never stop arguing.

I understand and appreciate your concerns re: language. However…The Church does, through her magisterial offices approve translations etc. Certainly we English speakers can trust that the English translation is accurate in it’s particulars. So I don’t see language as being an insurmountable obstacle here.

It appears that you have taken the long way round to say - No you cannot provide documentation to confirm your statement “It is doctrine that we are fundamentally flawed”. I emphasized the term you use - “doctrine” - because if it IS a doctrine then it certainly should be documented somewhere as such.

Here, I think, is the closest you are going to come in authoritatively-established Catholic theology:

**Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): One man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. **

In the absence of grace, we have “dead souls.”

That’s pretty fundamentally flawed, don’t you think?

Interesting…your response here leads me to this question.
Is a baby born with a living or a dead soul?

Peace
James