Is sinning sometimes necessary for the advancement of civilization?

[Monte_RCMS]

Sounds like a hypothetical science fiction question. OK to murder a Romulan head chief?

I was told in high school that it was a mortal sin to attend a non-Catholic college.

We made a decision to attend a very high quality non-Catholic college.

When our pastor inquired we told him the truth and he got very excited and said it was easily the finest college in the country. He was very pleased with my having been accepted.

No condemnation at all. No criticism. Not a sin. Just delight at my good fortune.

[We discussed this one day with a bunch of priests and nuns at lunch. My friends who attended Catholic college mostly lost their faith. And I’m still with the Church.]

Having voluntary sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin of fornication and/or adultery. And there is zero assurance that the child from that event will discover a cure for cancer. And a better than even chance that the child will grow up to be a crack whore or gang banger. We can get forgiveness of the sin. Easily in confession. Assuming that we don’t die before we have the opportunity to get to confession. Also a high(er) probablility of the baby being born with syphilis.

Women used to ride horses side-saddle for a reason. NOT astride.

 

[Leifler]

Bearing an illegitimate child who becomes an Einstein is an example of a sin that advances civilization.

And we can assume that God would not have had that Einstein exist anyway?

And more so, the entire premise is based upon a sin filled world. Marriage gains less and less traction so those born outside have slowly gained traction. But if we all lived under sinlessness, or perhaps shall we say “Minimal sin” then a world would be one where marriage is easier. Any marriage of two near sinless people could at least function as a pretty decent marriage, so those seeking to engage in Einstein producing activities would be less wary of doing so in its proper order. So as the only reason sin seems “necessary” is because it is sin within sin. It is like saying we need to kill bad guys, no bad guys = no killing

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Confucius and Leonardo da Vinci were children of an unmarried couple, and yet both advanced civilization.

Millions of other babies from unmarried couples were not so favorably blessed with such wonderful outcomes.

" … an unmarried couple … "

[the SAME couple?]

 

[mikekle]

For example,

There was a time during the Vatican 1 days when women weren’t allowed to play sports. That was the culture of the time and Pope, bishops, agreed with this sentiment.

Women rebelled and played sports anyway, people began to realize “hey, girls can play sports too!”…now it would be considered discriminatory in our culture today by the church if we were to forbid women from playing sports.

Keep in mind, just like we sit here today and think back to the days when most people thought it was wrong for women to play sports, and its almost comical to think how people could have thought such things, but remember, 100 +yrs in the future, people living then will be doing the exact same thing about many things we consider to be OK, or normal right now.

They will be saying things like “WOW, how could people back in the early 2010s have thought things like that, how could they have had those crazy beliefs”, etc etc.

I often try to think what some of these things will be, I think abortion will be a big one, people in the future will think we were all crazy that we didnt see it for what it truly was and wonder how a Govt could make such a thing legal and available to everyone, kind of like how we feel about slavery today.

 

[AKDee]

Some of you are jumping to the erroneous conclusion (it appears) that sin was NECESSARY for a certain advance in civilization. You’re using a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument fallacy- “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”

Several examples of certain brilliant people being born as a result of sex outside of marriage have been brought up. Do you think the reason the kids were brilliant was because they were illegitimate? Or could it be more likely that DESPITE their illegitimacy, God chose to create those people with all that genius, thus making something good come of something evil?

I’m surprised to see a defense of sin as being necessary on this forum.

 

[1neophyte]

Some of you are jumping to the erroneous conclusion (it appears) that sin was NECESSARY for a certain advance in civilization. You’re using a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument fallacy- “Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.”

Several examples of certain brilliant people being born as a result of sex outside of marriage have been brought up. Do you think the reason the kids were brilliant was because they were illegitimate? Or could it be more likely that DESPITE their illegitimacy, God chose to create those people with all that genius, thus making something good come of something evil?

I’m surprised to see a defense of sin as being necessary on this forum.

Are you also surprised at the Easter Vigil every year during the Exsultet when reference is made to the HAPPY fault and NECESSARY sin of Adam? Frankly, I’m surprised you identify as Catholic while still using the proper ad hoc ipso quid pro quo post hoc ergo relativistic Protestant line of thinking where you think you see things more clearly than God does, and worship the god of erroneous philosophical solipsism rather than the one true God revealed by Jesus.

 

[1neophyte]

I will refrain from testifying to my own brilliance and effect on civilization, but I can say that I would not be who I am today if not for numerous sins (those of my parents as well as my own). Whether or not the sins were NECESSARY is immaterial. It is much more productive to stand in awe of how God works through these sins to produce goodness.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Are you also surprised at the Easter Vigil every year during the Exsultet when reference is made to the HAPPY fault and NECESSARY sin of Adam? Frankly, I’m surprised you identify as Catholic while still using the proper ad hoc ipso quid pro quo post hoc ergo relativistic Protestant line of thinking where you think you see things more clearly than God does, and worship the god of erroneous philosophical solipsism rather than the one true God revealed by Jesus.

AkDee is right on. Not sure here this is all coming from.

Sin only results in human destruction. Sin is not necessary for human progress and is instead something that keeps us back from our full potential.

 

[1neophyte]

AkDee is right on. Not sure here this is all coming from.

Sin only results in human destruction. Sin is not necessary for human progress and is instead something that keeps us back from our full potential.

It’s coming from the Exsultet proclaimed every year during the Easter Vigil liturgy. Are you saying that the Exsultet is not “right on”?

P.S. The crucifixion and death of Jesus resulted in both human and divine destruction, and the Resurrection, the greatest moment of progress in human history, would have been impossible without that destruction.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I will refrain from testifying to my own brilliance and effect on civilization, but I can say that I would not be who I am today if not for numerous sins (those of my parents as well as my own). Whether or not the sins were NECESSARY is immaterial. It is much more productive to stand in awe of how God works through these sins to produce goodness.

Imagine what you would be if you had no sin.

Are you saying Christ or Mary would have been better people if they had sinned?

You make false equivalences. It is good that you learn and grow from your sins. This does not mean you should seek out sinning so as to learn even more.

 

[1neophyte]

Imagine what you would be if you had no sin.

Are you saying Christ or Mary would have been better people if they had sinned?

You make false equivalences. It is good that you learn and grow from your sins. This does not mean you should seek out sinning so as to learn even more.

If I had no sin, I would be even more sickeningly prideful than I already am, and thus I would be in sin. Where did I imply that anyone should seek out sinning?

 

[AKDee]

Are you also surprised at the Easter Vigil every year during the Exsultet when reference is made to the HAPPY fault and NECESSARY sin of Adam? Frankly, I’m surprised you identify as Catholic while still using the proper ad hoc ipso quid pro quo post hoc ergo relativistic Protestant line of thinking where you think you see things more clearly than God does, and worship the god of erroneous philosophical solipsism rather than the one true God revealed by Jesus.

First of all, I’m flat out offended that you actually chose a single post of mine to turn around and question my Catholic faith. It is rare for me to get offended on these forums, but you have managed to do it. You have no right to question my faith at all, let alone on a single post, let alone when your reasoning is so flawed.

Argument fallacies are not protestant or catholic. They are failures of logic. And people here that are saying that evil HAD to occur for a good to come out of them are using improper logic. God can make good come of evil and He can make good come of good. God is not limited. And it’s not a teaching in any Christian faith that I’m aware of- let alone Catholicism- that we need to sin in order for God to make good things happen.

There is nothing anti-Catholic about my post that you referenced. God does indeed make good come from evil, but he does not will evil to happen. He can make good come without evil, as well. There are plenty of articles available that will explain to you “O happy fault” and “necessary sin” and I suggest you read them because it doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means.

 

[1neophyte]

First of all, I’m flat out offended that you actually chose a single post of mine to turn around and question my Catholic faith. It is rare for me to get offended on these forums, but you have managed to do it. You have no right to question my faith at all, let alone on a single post, let alone when your reasoning is so flawed.

Argument fallacies are not protestant or catholic. They are failures of logic. And people here that are saying that evil HAD to occur for a good to come out of them are using improper logic. God can make good come of evil and He can make good come of good. God is not limited. And it’s not a teaching in any Christian faith that I’m aware of- let alone Catholicism- that we need to sin in order for God to make good things happen.

There is nothing anti-Catholic about my post that you referenced. God does indeed make good come from evil, but he does not will evil to happen. He can make good come without evil, as well. There are plenty of articles available that will explain to you “O happy fault” and “necessary sin” and I suggest you read them because it doesn’t mean what you appear to think it means.

If my reasoning was flawed, and I was speaking erroneously, there should be no reason for you to get offended. Also, I never once suggested that God wills evil to happen. We do a thorough enough job of that ourselves that His help is not necessary. But God’s response to our evil puts us in a better position than we would have been in if not for our sin. There is no way you can debate that. And ipso facto, our self-willed evil was necessary to put us in the better position we are now in.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It’s coming from the Exsultet proclaimed every year during the Easter Vigil liturgy. Are you saying that the Exsultet is not “right on”?

P.S. The crucifixion and death of Jesus resulted in both human and divine destruction, and the Resurrection, the greatest moment of progress in human history, would have been impossible without that destruction.

No I’m saying you are not right on. Why so angry friend? Read the below article on the Exultet.

serviamministries.com/blog/o-happy-fault/

What I see in this thread is some saying, “sin is necessary for good to come”. What follows is sin is ok and sin should maybe even be sought out".

No

Instead, we can understand that God can do great good despite our weakness, but this does not mean things are better than they would be if we never sinned at all.

Bringing in the Exultet and the uniqueness of the first sin of Adam to condone something like premarital sex is…way off.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If I had no sin, I would be even more sickeningly prideful than I already am, and thus I would be in sin. Where did I imply that anyone should seek out sinning?

You have absolutely no way of knowing this.

 

[1neophyte]

No I’m saying you are not right on. Why do angry friend? Read the below article in the Exultet.

serviamministries.com/blog/o-happy-fault/

What I see in this thread is some saying, “sin is necessary for good to come”.

You will also see that in the article you just linked, almost word for word. Your erroneous conclusion that this line of thinking necessary leads to sin being sought out is … erroneous.

 

[Tomdstone]

" … an unmarried couple … "

[the SAME couple?]

No, it was not the same couple, but in each case the parents were an unmarried couple.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

The first is that “non-discrimination against women in sports” represents some sort of meaningful advancement of civilization. That is debatable. Is it “fun” or “cool”? Perhaps. (I’m not a sportsman, as you can tell. ) But whether it constitutes a true advance of civilization is debatable. Does the fact that women play sports make us better persons? Does it lead to the moral development of our culture and the salvation of souls? Or is an occasion of sin for some?

Recreation is an essential need for civilization. To deprive a certain group of people from it simply because they are female is taking away a God-given right from them. Sports are also a way for women to better themselves by applying their drive in sports to the same as life…skilled women can make money off playing sports as well to provide for themselves and their families.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Assuming that I was under the impression that marital relations constitutes a mortal sin was not assuming the best in me. It was somewhat hurtful, actually.

I got it the first time!

As did most others.

Well said!

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Bearing an illegitimate child who becomes an Einstein is an example of a sin that advances civilization.

But it wasn’t necessary. The advance was a byproduct of the act, but did not require it. Einstein’s parents could have simply married before conceiving him.

We are never permitted to sin to advance anything. If we think we have found a case, it isn’t a sin to begin with.