Original Sin and Concupiscence

[ichabode]

simpleas,

It is common for us to see death linked to suffering as that is normal take cancer for as an example, but the phrase “less you die” did not have to be associated with suffering. Of course it very well might have been.

Before Satan entered into the garden in a physical form, we do not know how much time had passed from the moment God breathed life into Adam and Eve was created from Adam. The time period was long enough for Adam to not be influenced by concupiscence as he was able to see perfectly the nature of animals as to name them. The idea that he named them is meant to reveal that Adam named an animal according to their nature. You could not do that with a weakened intellect ( no concupiscence at this time). To have dominion over something begins to knowing who you are dealing with and is also the formula we see for exorcisms. See Gospel accounts when demons ask for Jesus name and Jesus responds by knowing the demons. A exorcism counter exorcism. That side note is just to quickly provide a deeper understanding of what is meant by naming and having control.

Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil when there was no alien threat to do so. It only came about when Satan entered into the garden and threatened their life by revealing to Adam and Eve if they do not eat of the tree, in a cloaked way, they will be punished. Of course God would not punish Adam and Eve for not eating of the tree after all they are rewarded with paradise. The language used to describe Satan in that setting is the same language used in the book of Revelation, so a beastly dragon. That is why I am saying they feared suffering at the hands of this unknown powerful creature before them. A creature though they did not name they surely knew his nature, and probably even the fact that he is not a respecter of persons and life, and though God would raise them up; they also knew God would did not have to intervene in their suffering by this creature. If God did not prevent and stop the fall of his highest Angel and others God most likely would not prevent Satan from harming the physical body of Adam and Eve. Of course Satan or no man has power over the soul.

If Satan would not have appeared in a physical form the threat would not have been there.

 

[ichabode]

It seems to me that the answer to the question “when concupiscence first came to exist?”, is contained in the CCC quote included the OP. Namely, concupiscence came to exist immediately following the commission of the original sin.

DavidV, I wanted to comment on your quote that I bolded above. Adam and Eve committed the first sin or sometimes we read original fault. They did not commit “original sin”. That phrase or term is specially used to refer our state in which the human race is now created in or born into. I realize how petty this sounds, but I hear homilies often and the confusion between original fault, original sin, concupiscence is blurred badly and the average Joe parishioner is left confused and bewildered. Doctrinally especially as if we are born with original sin and Adam and Eve had/committed original sin then what are talking about?

The above is meant more for people who would read these post, and not directed to you in any mean spirited way. It is just a pet peeve of mine, and the confusion it causes.

God bless you and all those viewing and posting in the forum.

 

[frangiuliano115]

My question is not when evil first came to exist, but when concupiscence first came to exist.

I think concupiscence, if it is defined as the inclination to evil, first existed in both Satan and Adam and Eve when they were first created, or else they might not have sinned if that inclination did not already exist.

Somebody help me out here?

Charlemagne, I’m trying to help you by asking my question. I think we’re saying the same thing but with different words. As happens often in these posts.

**You say that concupiscence, as defined as the inclination to evil, first existed in both satan and Adam and Eve when they were first created, or else they might not have sinned if that inclination did not already exist.
**

OK. So that’s what I’m saying and asking: Thus, did God create sin?? If it already first existed in satan and Adam and Eve, where else could it have come from?? (not that I think God created sin, but it’s a good brain twister).

So, if God did NOT create sin and you simply want to know when concupiscence first came to exist, the easy and simple answer is: AFTER Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit allowing them to know evil and allowed sin (evil) to enter man and nature - thus affecting their own relationship, their relationship with God and their relationship with other humans.

As evidenced by our problems with God, our problems with nature and our problems with fellow humans.

Concupescence first came to exist AFTER Adam and Eve fell.

Now, if that doesn’t satisfy you, then you’re going to have to answer MY question!! Where does evil ORIGINALLY come from which caused satan to fall??

If you can’t answer that, and you’ll be hardpressed to, then just accept the easy and simple answer.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

This is what I find difficult to understand.

The Catechism says an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”.

How does this inclination to evil differ from the inclination to evil that existed before the Fall? Is it merely a “greater” inclination to evil? But what inclination to evil could be greater than the inclination to commit the origi9nal sin?

Am I being obtuse by not getting this?

I’m sorry Charlemagne, It’s me again. You’re not being obtuse. I’ve been studying for 40 years and this has bothered me from the beginning.

If we want to get theological about it, your dilemma will eventually bring you to the big problem in christianity:

How could a good God allow evil?

1. He is not a good God.
2. He is not an omnipotent God.

If you read my answers to you carefully (I think there are two) you’ll find that I’m trying to get to the root of what you don’t understand.

The problem that you’re having is in not realizing that your question goes much further than what you think and you’re not quite there yet, which is why I even hesitate to bring this up.

If a bulb lights up, please let me know.

God bless you
Fran

 

[Bahman]

I am perplexed by the language here. If concupiscence did not exist until after the Fall, why did it not exist before the Fall? Before the Fall, Adam and Eve apparently were inclined to sin and the Serpent knew this. Therefore, at the moment of his creation, was man not inclined to evil as well as to good?

This is a clear paradox meaning that there is no solution for it hence you need to question the validity of scripture carefully.

 

[frangiuliano115]

simpleas,

It is common for us to see death linked to suffering as that is normal take cancer for as an example, but the phrase “less you die” did not have to be associated with suffering. Of course it very well might have been.

Before Satan entered into the garden in a physical form, we do not know how much time had passed from the moment God breathed life into Adam and Eve was created from Adam. The time period was long enough for Adam to not be influenced by concupiscence as he was able to see perfectly the nature of animals as to name them. The idea that he named them is meant to reveal that Adam named an animal according to their nature. You could not do that with a weakened intellect ( no concupiscence at this time). To have dominion over something begins to knowing who you are dealing with and is also the formula we see for exorcisms. See Gospel accounts when demons ask for Jesus name and Jesus responds by knowing the demons. A exorcism counter exorcism. That side note is just to quickly provide a deeper understanding of what is meant by naming and having control.

Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil when there was no alien threat to do so. It only came about when Satan entered into the garden and threatened their life by revealing to Adam and Eve if they do not eat of the tree, in a cloaked way, they will be punished. Of course God would not punish Adam and Eve for not eating of the tree after all they are rewarded with paradise. The language used to describe Satan in that setting is the same language used in the book of Revelation, so a beastly dragon. That is why I am saying they feared suffering at the hands of this unknown powerful creature before them. A creature though they did not name they surely knew his nature, and probably even the fact that he is not a respecter of persons and life, and though God would raise them up; they also knew God would did not have to intervene in their suffering by this creature. If God did not prevent and stop the fall of his highest Angel and others God most likely would not prevent Satan from harming the physical body of Adam and Eve. Of course Satan or no man has power over the soul.

If Satan would not have appeared in a physical form the threat would not have been there.

Just want to say that when posting long replies we sometimes mis-say something, like the suffering thing which I had caught but paid no attention to because:

THE REST OF YOUR POSTS ARE TERIFFIC!

God bless you
Fran

 

[Bahman]

simpleas,

It is common for us to see death linked to suffering as that is normal take cancer for as an example, but the phrase “less you die” did not have to be associated with suffering. Of course it very well might have been.

Before Satan entered into the garden in a physical form, we do not know how much time had passed from the moment God breathed life into Adam and Eve was created from Adam. The time period was long enough for Adam to not be influenced by concupiscence as he was able to see perfectly the nature of animals as to name them. The idea that he named them is meant to reveal that Adam named an animal according to their nature. You could not do that with a weakened intellect ( no concupiscence at this time). To have dominion over something begins to knowing who you are dealing with and is also the formula we see for exorcisms. See Gospel accounts when demons ask for Jesus name and Jesus responds by knowing the demons. A exorcism counter exorcism. That side note is just to quickly provide a deeper understanding of what is meant by naming and having control.

Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil when there was no alien threat to do so. It only came about when Satan entered into the garden and threatened their life by revealing to Adam and Eve if they do not eat of the tree, in a cloaked way, they will be punished. Of course God would not punish Adam and Eve for not eating of the tree after all they are rewarded with paradise. The language used to describe Satan in that setting is the same language used in the book of Revelation, so a beastly dragon. That is why I am saying they feared suffering at the hands of this unknown powerful creature before them. A creature though they did not name they surely knew his nature, and probably even the fact that he is not a respecter of persons and life, and though God would raise them up; they also knew God would did not have to intervene in their suffering by this creature. If God did not prevent and stop the fall of his highest Angel and others God most likely would not prevent Satan from harming the physical body of Adam and Eve. Of course Satan or no man has power over the soul.

If Satan would not have appeared in a physical form the threat would not have been there.

Why then God allowed Satan to enter into the Garden knowing the serious consequences? Isn’t God responsible for that and all happened afterward?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Charlemagne, I’m trying to help you by asking my question. I think we’re saying the same thing but with different words. As happens often in these posts.

**You say that concupiscence, as defined as the inclination to evil, first existed in both satan and Adam and Eve when they were first created, or else they might not have sinned if that inclination did not already exist.
**

OK. So that’s what I’m saying and asking: Thus, did God create sin?? If it already first existed in satan and Adam and Eve, where else could it have come from?? (not that I think God created sin, but it’s a good brain twister).

So, if God did NOT create sin and you simply want to know when concupiscence first came to exist, the easy and simple answer is: AFTER Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit allowing them to know evil and allowed sin (evil) to enter man and nature - thus affecting their own relationship, their relationship with God and their relationship with other humans.

As evidenced by our problems with God, our problems with nature and our problems with fellow humans.

Concupescence first came to exist AFTER Adam and Eve fell.

Now, if that doesn’t satisfy you, then you’re going to have to answer MY question!! Where does evil ORIGINALLY come from which caused satan to fall??If you can’t answer that, and you’ll be hardpressed to, then just accept the easy and simple answer.

God bless you

Good question. My answer would be that Satan’s first sin was a result of his own concupiscence which is an essential part of his nature. By this I mean that Satan was created imperfect with the power to choose between good and evil, and with the built-in inclination for his imperfect nature to fall eventually but not necessarily. That is, Satan could have chosen the obedience of Michael and all the angels who freely chose to remain in virtue.

So I’m thinking now that Satan and Adam and Eve knew concupiscence before their Fall from grace. The concupiscence of Satan demanded greater punishment than that of Adam and Eve because Satan was created with a greater power of grace to resist the concupiscence that was in him.

 

[Bahman]

Good question. My answer would be that Satan’s first sin was a result of his own concupiscence which is an essential part of his nature. By this I mean that Satan was created imperfect with the power to choose between good and evil, and with the built-in inclination for his imperfect nature to fall eventually but not necessarily. That is, Satan could have chosen the obedience of Michael and all the angels who freely chose to remain in virtue.

So I’m thinking now that Satan and Adam and Eve knew concupiscence before their Fall from grace. The concupiscence of Satan demanded greater punishment than that of Adam and Eve because Satan was created with a greater power of grace to resist the concupiscence that was in him.

His nature? That is just an excuse to hide the problem. Who gave his nature to him at first place? Satan was created by God! Wasn’t he?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is a clear paradox meaning that there is no solution for it hence you need to question the validity of scripture carefully.

I never question the validity of Scripture.

I am always questioning the validity of my interpretations of Scripture.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Why then God allowed Satan to enter into the Garden knowing the serious consequences? Isn’t God responsible for that and all happened afterward?

In a previous post you say we should throw out the scriptures because you feel they are not valid.

Read Isaiah 52 and 53 and then tell me who it’s speaking of. Oh. And check out the date it was written.

Also, I’m not sure if you’re asking a serious question or just being sarcastic. My guess is that you’re being sarcastic.

Knowing all the serious consequences maybe God should never have created the universe, the earth or humans.

So maybe you could start out by wondering WHY God created everything. That would be interesting, don’t you think?? It would also be the proper start to your question.

God blesses all of us, even those who don’t know it

 

[Charlemagne_III]

His nature? That is just an excuse to hide the problem. Who gave his nature to him at first place? Satan was created by God! Wasn’t he?

Yes, of course Satan was created by God. And yes, God created him with the power to choose evil. And yes, God knew before his creation that he would choose evil. And yes, God did the same to Adam and Eve.

So what is your point? That God is evil?

If I were to derive my own point from all this it would be that as playwright Shakespeare is an amateur compared to God.

 

[fhansen]

What would you call the “lower appetite”? Wanting a forbidden apple?

If the “forbidden fruit” becomes merely a symbol for the higher appetite of wanting to be as God, I find it difficult to distinguish between the lower and the higher appetites.

I really think man’s destiny was sealed from the moment of his creation.

God knew man would sin, since God is outside time and omniscient.

Concupiscence seems to be a built-in suicidal sin detector right from the start.

I don’t get the distinction between innocence before the Fall and concupiscence after the Fall. Wasn’t there an inclination to sin before the Fall?

Isn’t that the definition of concupiscence … an inclination to sin?

It’s an interesting question. From my understanding the CC insists that concupiscence came only as a result of the Fall, that it’s not the equivalent of OS incidentally, as the Reformers maintained that it was, but rather a consequence of it. God cannot be the author of sin, and would not command something which cannot possibly be obeyed, so Adam was made with the potential for sin, which could occur as a result of abusing his gift of free will, but not with the necessity of committing sin. God, knowing that Adam would sin, however, deemed it worthwhile to create nonetheless, planning to bring an even greater good in the end out of the evil that would result in the meanwhile.

This doesn’t answer the basic question, however, ‘How did God’s good creation, whether men or angels, determine to do something less that good, i.e. evil?’ The only answer that has ever come to me is that all creation, being inherently inferior to it’s perfect creator, is therefore inherently less than perfect, relative to Him. Combine that less-than-perfection with a free will and the ingredients for the potential for sin are in place. Men and angels were created with sentience, reason, a conscience, etc, and therefore have a high degree of culpability for an act of rebellion against God, apparently more so for angels as their intelligence is greater. God planned for man to learn the hard way, if necessary, that the Tree of Life, presumably ignored in Eden, should be of much greater interest that the other Tree. We must partake of/commune with God; we must learn of that necessity. Perfection/holiness, most supremely defined by love for God, are worth cultivating and perhaps that justice is all the greater the more we will it, the more we hunger and thirst and strive for it. Just some thoughts, maybe not helpful.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Good question. My answer would be that Satan’s first sin was a result of his own concupiscence which is an essential part of his nature. **By this I mean that Satan was created imperfect with the power to choose between good and evil, and with the built-in inclination for his imperfect nature to fall eventually but not necessarily. **That is, Satan could have chosen the obedience of Michael and all the angels who freely chose to remain in virtue.

So I’m thinking now that Satan and Adam and Eve knew concupiscence before their Fall from grace. The concupiscence of Satan demanded greater punishment than that of Adam and Eve because Satan was created with a greater power of grace to resist the concupiscence that was in him.

By this I mean that Satan was created imperfect with the power to choose between good and evil, and with the built-in inclination for his imperfect nature to fall eventually but not necessarily.

How could a perfect God create an imperfect Satan??

Bahman is right then in questioning who gave satan his nature in the first place (God).

We’re treading choppy waters here.

I’ve read a lot about this and asked very learned people to explain all we’re talking about. They give you a lot of mumbo jumbo because:

There was nobody around when all this happened!

Even though scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it’s not a history book. God only told us what we need to know to get to know Him, which was His desire in the Old Testament, and to find out how to have Him in our heart, which is found in the New Testament.

God is infinite. We’re not. You know the scriptures so I won’t look it up but you know that it says that God’s mind is not our mind and God’s ways are not our ways.

We can’t understand everything. The beginning of Genesis was written to explain why man is evil and sinful. I mean, do you really think a snake spoke to Eve? A snake in the Old Testament just symbolizes something evil. It COULD have been a snake, it could have been a strong thought in her mind - we’re not like the fundamentalist christians that believe the world was actually created in 7 days. So think of it in that way and don’t torture yourself. Accept the CCC as it’s written, otherwise you make problems for yourself.

I think this is more than you wanted to get into but maybe it’ll help clear your thoughts.

God bless you
Fran
p.s. Real history in the Old Testament begins with Abraham, as you might probably know.

 

[Bahman]

I never question the validity of Scripture.

I am always questioning the validity of my interpretations of Scripture.

Why don’t you question the validity of Scripture? Your system of belief could be completely wrong. What does even interpretation means when the story is clearly paradoxical? That is only a way to evade the a wrong situation which is related to the origin of the sin when God creates good. It is very simple, if God creation is good and evil is absence of good then how evil could possibly come out of creation?

 

[Bahman]

In a previous post you say we should throw out the scriptures because you feel they are not valid.

I don’t believe in scripture. I am just raising a question that why you believe in scripture when you clearly see even a single paradox within.

Read Isaiah 52 and 53 and then tell me who it’s speaking of. Oh. And check out the date it was written.

I read Isaiah 52 and 53 but I unfortunately don’t understand how they could be related to the topic.

Also, I’m not sure if you’re asking a serious question or just being sarcastic. My guess is that you’re being sarcastic.

You are wrong. I am very serious.

Knowing all the serious consequences maybe God should never have created the universe, the earth or humans.

There are two problems here that you need to find an answer for them: 1) How evil could possibly raise from something which good, 2) Why God created something which leads to an disaster knowing that the situation is unavoidable?

So maybe you could start out by wondering WHY God created everything. That would be interesting, don’t you think?? It would also be the proper start to your question.

I was wondering if you have an answer to this question.

 

[Lucretius]

Why don’t you question the validity of Scripture? Your system of belief could be completely wrong. What does even interpretation means when the story is clearly paradoxical? That is only a way to evade the a wrong situation which is related to the origin of the sin when God creates good. It is very simple, if God creation is good and evil is absence of good then how evil could possibly come out of creation?

Bahman,

Your objection is just a species of the more general Problem of Evil.

St. Thomas taught (and I’m very much simplifying here) that for creation to be perfect, on the order of creation, it had to be free, just as God is free. As a result of this freedom, evil is possible.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Augustine, pray for us!

 

[Bahman]

Yes, of course Satan was created by God. And yes, God created him with the power to choose evil. And yes, God knew before his creation that he would choose evil. And yes, God did the same to Adam and Eve.

You need to be exposed to an evil situation to perform evil. That is not a feasible situation when Satan was in Heaven since Heaven grants the state of perfection because you are in intimacy with God.

So what is your point? That God is evil?

That is a feasible answer: God is evil. The other feasible answer: God is responsible for the first evil since creation was good. It is very simple, good just only could lead to good unless it corrupted with evil. Creation was good hence you can only expect good from it unless God corrupt the creation.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,

Your objection is just a species of the more general Problem of Evil.

St. Thomas taught (and I’m very much simplifying here) that for creation to be perfect, on the order of creation, it had to be free, just as God is free. As a result of this freedom, evil is possible.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

St. Augustine, pray for us!

No, that is not possible. You need to experience an evil situation to perform an evil act which this not possible when the situation is always good. How one can perform an evil action when they are not even exposed to it? You need to be cognitively open to evil!

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t believe in scripture. I am just raising a question that why you believe in scripture when you clearly see even a single paradox within.

I read Isaiah 52 and 53 but I unfortunately don’t understand how they could be related to the topic.

You are wrong. I am very serious.

There are two problems here that you need to find an answer for them: 1) How evil could possibly raise from something which good, 2) Why God created something which leads to an disaster knowing that the situation is unavoidable?

I was wondering if you have an answer to this question.

Well, if you’re really serious I’ll give you some answers but then that’s it, it’s really late here where I am.

1 & 2. I believe in scripture because it’s the only feasible explanation I’ve ever had in understanding good and evil. I came to know God through evil, as happens to many. Thus - if evil exists then God must exist. Otherwise we’d be living in hell right now, if only evil existed. One existence demads that the other also exists. I say this because it’s really easy for people to see evil all around them, but not good.

Also, because I had a personal encounter with God which is one of the ways you could get to Know Him. The other way is through reasoning, which is what I hope you are doing and not just letting me type because you like to debate.

What Isaiah 52 and 53 has to do with it, and I do appreciate that you took the time to read these passages, is that they are clearly speaking of Jesus. Isaiah, an important prophet, wrote these words about 700 yrs before Jesus was even born.

It’s not related to this topic, but related to your saying that the bible is not valid. It’s valid if what it proclaims is true. As for the paradoxes, please see my explanation in Charlemagnes letter.

1. Yes. I hope you’re serious.
2. This is also explained in my letter to Charlemagne. As I’ve said, I’ve been studying for 40 years and I thought of both questions way before you did. I don’t think you’re as old as I am. In the end there is no answer but you’ll have to refer to my other post.
3. Why God created everything. Who can know the mind of God? However, our christianity teaches us that God is a creator and that he likes to create and is probaly still doing so at this moment and that he created us for company (for goodness sake! - what kind of God is He ) and that is why we choose evil sometimes. He created us with free will so that we could freely love Him.

I know you must be familiar with this concept. If we didn’t have free will we’d be like puppets. Hate repeating this but it’s the best way to explain it. Would you want a man/woman to love you freely or because they’re were forced to? That wouldn’t be real love and you wouldn’t appreciate it - being an intelligent person.

The catechism of the catholic church teaches that we were made to Know, Love and Serve the Lord. And this would be our purpose in life. What is the purpose in life of an atheist, for instance? How sad to think that we go through all this trouble and then we die and it’s all over. Oh. But wait. Then we get accused of needing to believe in an afterlife so we could bear this one - but it’s not like that.

We believe in an afterlife because we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You too could believe in scripture if your heart were sincere and open and were truly seeking God. It would make more sense to you. Do you not like the gospel of John? Or is it just a lot of nonsense?

May God bless you