Original Sin and Concupiscence

[Charlemagne_III]

**

How could a perfect God create an imperfect Satan??

We’re treading choppy waters here…**

A perfect God could create an imperfect Satan very easily because only God is perfect.

Not sure about the choppy waters. I don’t think any of my thoughts so far are heretical.

Yes, the inclination to sin is certainly more emphatic since the Fall, but why not at all before the Fall?

To be free, must we not have the opportunity to sin, the inclination to sin, and the power to resist sin?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

My answer would be that Satan’s first sin was a result of his own concupiscence . . .

The term “concupiscence” isn’t usually applied to angelic beings. They don’t have a sensitive appetite, and their intellective appetite (will) is either determined wholly to good or to evil. There is no angel that is “inclined” to do evil and does good some of the time.

As a matter of fact, St. Thomas states (S.T. I, Q. 63, a4):

…every intellectual nature is inclined towards good in general, which it can apprehend and which is the object of the will. Hence, since the demons are intellectual substances, they can in no wise have a natural inclination towards any evil whatsoever; consequently they cannot be naturally evil.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

To be free, must we not have the opportunity to sin, the inclination to sin, and the power to resist sin?

If one is inclined to sin (i.e. bent on it, tending toward it, etc), he is *less *free. It is possible to make a choice without having a nature inclined to that choice.

 

[simpleas]

The first two humans were created good, not perfect.

 

[simpleas]

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.

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).

Well he would not have been influenced by concupiscence because it didn’t exist until after the fall

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.

Not quite with you here, Adam was only a human as far as am aware.

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.

Don’t recall satan saying they would be punished. He seems to draw doubt into their minds as to what God had actually said.

The rest of what you say is an interesting take. Thanks for posting.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The term “concupiscence” isn’t usually applied to angelic beings. They don’t have a sensitive appetite, and their intellective appetite (will) is either determined wholly to good or to evil. There is no angel that is “inclined” to do evil and does good some of the time.

This certainly is not what I meant to say. I meant to say that angels in their created state must have been inclined (free) both to do good or to do evil. I did not say they could do good some of the times and evil some of the time. The angels who chose evil were damned forever. The angels who chose good are saved forever. However, where did Satan’s inclination to do evil come from? It certainly did not come after his Fall. It came before his Fall. If it came from his pride of place, which is the usual explanation, it was still an inclination planted in him by God which he was free to resist or submit to.

 

[davidv]

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.

Why isn’t the sin of Adam and Eve the original sin? What human sinned before Adam and Eve?

Does original mean first? If so, Adam and Eve’s first sin in the garden was the original sin.

 

[davidv]

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?

What inclination to evil existed in the garden before the fall?

Adam’s and Eve’s intellect and will were in perfect harmony with their desires (passions). How could they be inclined to sin in this state?

Obtuse or not, there seems to some point responders are missing in your lack of understanding.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

. . . inclined (free) . . .

I think part of the problem here is language. You are using “inclined” as a synonym for free. But in theology, the expression “inclination to evil” has a meaning which is not at all the same as moral freedom, but is in fact somewhat opposed to it.

A) Picture a flat, level road with a car on it. The driver is *free *to go north or south.

B) Imagine that the road is on a steep incline. The driver is still free to go north or south, but going north is harder, and going south is very easy. If he puts the car in neutral it will drift south.

Are scenarios A & B one and the same? No, they are quite different. Granted, a physical incline is not exactly the same as a spiritual inclination, but I think you get the idea?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think part of the problem here is language. You are using “inclined” as a synonym for free. But in theology, the expression “inclination to evil” has a meaning which is not at all the same as moral freedom, but is in fact somewhat opposed to it.

A) Picture a flat, level road with a car on it. The driver is *free *to go north or south.

B) Imagine that the road is on a steep incline. The driver is still free to go north or south, but going north is harder, and going south is very easy. If he puts the car in neutral it will drift south.

Are scenarios A & B one and the same? No, they are quite different. Granted, a physical incline is not exactly the same as a spiritual inclination, but I think you get the idea?

Again, I don’t mean to be obtuse. It’s a quality I don’t like in others for sure.

But if you are on a level road and can go one way or the other with equal ease, there is a reason (inclination) to go one way or the other.

When Adam and Eve sinned, there was an inclination to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree once the nature of that fruit was falsely explained to them by the serpent. They could have refused, and been inclined to eat rather of all the other trees except that one. Why did they choose the serpent’s favored tree if they were not already inclined to do so? The inclination to do evil did not begin after the Fall, but rather before.

If you want to say the inclination got ramped up after the Fall, that would be a reasonable inference. But to say there was no inclination before the Fall seems to me not a true representation of the state of mind they were in when they decided to defy God’s command not to eat that apple.

 

[fhansen]

Again, I don’t mean to be obtuse. It’s a quality I don’t like in others for sure.

But if you are on a level road and can go one way or the other with equal ease, there is a reason (inclination) to go one way or the other.

When Adam and Eve sinned, there was an inclination to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree once the nature of that fruit was falsely explained to them by the serpent. They could have refused, and been inclined to eat rather of all the other trees except that one. Why did they choose the serpent’s favored tree if they were not already inclined to do so? The inclination to do evil did not begin after the Fall, but rather before.

If you want to say the inclination got ramped up after the Fall, that would be a reasonable inference. But to say there was no inclination before the Fall seems to me not a true representation of the state of mind they were in when they decided to defy God’s command not to eat that apple.

Their inclination was to “be like God”- not a bad inclination as it was *God’s *own desire for them. Their fault was in thinking they could be like God but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”. Their fault lied in the very limitations, inherent in all creation, that made possible such a foolish idea, an idea that humanity still persists in continuing to contemplate and experiment with to this day.

 

[Vico]

There was no “complete” subordination of man’s lower passions to his reason, and we know this because Adam and Eve rebelled against God.

Original sin was not a lower passion, rather his disobedience merited and brought death into the world (Romans 5:13, 14). The identification of original sin with concupiscence was rejected by St. Thomas Aquinas who distinguished the supernatural gifts from natural and that the supernatural was lost which enabled man to keep his lower nature in submission.

 

[ichabode]

Does original mean first? If so, Adam and Eve’s first sin in the garden was the original sin.

David, there is nothing wrong with your use of the English language. The above statement is correct in the meaning you provided. I would just say it is confusing because we are speaking about theological terms that Church has used to define certain truths of our faith. It is more like a reserved phrase with special meaning.

Think about it in another way. If we were reading a systematic theological work and we came across the word substance, accidents or appetite we would need to understand those words in their proper context because today’s language and usage do not have the primary meaning they did in the time of Aquinas.

 

[Bahman]

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.

What are your defention of good and evil?

I came to know God through evil, as happens to many. Thus - if evil exists then God must exist.

According to Catholic teaching evil does not exist so I am really disturbed whether you are following your teaching or not,

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.

So according to you God takes the credit from a prophet who he has sent!?

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.

Can you please give me your post number?

1. 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.

Which post?

1. 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.

We have to be cognitively open to evil and experience evil to learn so you can then perform an evil act otherwise it is impossible. How evil could come in the first place if everything was created good?

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.

You cannot love freely. You experience things and they might put you in an emotional situation so called love. You however can reject love for something else like hate. But you cannot possibly hate if you are not cognitively open to it and have never experienced it. So the main trouble is what was the main source of evil in the first place? The evil couldn’t possibly exist in a good creation since you can only expect good from good in a good creation.

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.

I don’t understand how this is related to the topic.

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

I drop a system of belief once I find an error within assuming that is given by God.

 

[frangiuliano115]

A perfect God could create an imperfect Satan very easily because only God is perfect.

Not sure about the choppy waters. I don’t think any of my thoughts so far are heretical.

Yes, the inclination to sin is certainly more emphatic since the Fall, but why not at all before the Fall?

To be free, must we not have the opportunity to sin, the inclination to sin, and the power to resist sin?

If you check back you’ll see that fhansen brought up my question. How could a perfect God create an imperfect being?

So you’re just rehashing the question which really has no answer. I never said your thoughts are heretical. I meant by choppy waters, that we could get off balance and are seeking answers which may not exist.

So you’re still asking about BEFORE the fall. So at this point, I have to give up!

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think part of the problem here is language. You are using “inclined” as a synonym for free. But in theology, the expression “inclination to evil” has a meaning which is not at all the same as moral freedom, but is in fact somewhat opposed to it.

A) Picture a flat, level road with a car on it. The driver is *free *to go north or south.

B) Imagine that the road is on a steep incline. The driver is still free to go north or south, but going north is harder, and going south is very easy. If he puts the car in neutral it will drift south.

Are scenarios A & B one and the same? No, they are quite different. Granted, a physical incline is not exactly the same as a spiritual inclination, but I think you get the idea?

I think Charlemagne is using the word incline correctly - I think he just can’t see and is questioning what happened, or what state, creatures were in before the fall , thus allowing them to BE INCLINED toward evil.

So what he’s really asking is concupiscense is a RESULT of original sin, but how the heck did we get o.s. if God is perfect?

Which has been my question for the past 40 yrs and to which I have stopped looking for an answer –

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

David, there is nothing wrong with your use of the English language. The above statement is correct in the meaning you provided. I would just say it is confusing because we are speaking about theological terms that Church has used to define certain truths of our faith. It is more like a reserved phrase with special meaning.

Think about it in another way. If we were reading a systematic theological work and we came across the word substance, accidents or appetite we would need to understand those words in their proper context because today’s language and usage do not have the primary meaning they did in the time of Aquinas.

Well, Amen to that!

But, infortunately, the CCC which was just written is also not easy to understand and I have to practically translate it at every lesson.

I DO wish language would not be a problem since there is so much to hash over anyway!

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

Their inclination was to “be like God”- not a bad inclination as it was *God’s *own desire for them. Their fault was in thinking they could be like God but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”. Their fault lied in the very limitations, inherent in all creation, that made possible such a foolish idea, an idea that humanity still persists in continuing to contemplate and experiment with to this day.

Hello fhansen,

Always seem to agree with all your posts.

I’ve highlighted your above post because you’ve gotten to the heart of the problem which I’ve tried to bring up before.

**davidv **is also having a problem with this as evidenced below by his statement:

**What inclination to evil existed in the garden before the fall?

Adam’s and Eve’s intellect and will were in perfect harmony with their desires (passions). How could they be inclined to sin in this state?

Obtuse or not, there seems to some point responders are missing in your lack of understanding.**

He rightly asks: If Adam and Eve’s intellect and will were in PERFECT harmony with their desires, how could they be INCLINED to sin?

And therein lies the ENTIRE PROBLEM.

Now, I believe it is you who presents an undersanding of how a perfect God could create an imperfect creature. And, once again, you’ve hit the nail on the head by saying that we were slightly less perfect. The theological answer. And I’m glad you’re satisfied with this answer. I can’t quite wrap my brain around it yet. But I’ve been trying for the last 40 yrs and I hope to still have a few left!

Oh. And I don’t really think it’s all that important anyway. Only Jesus and the cross and the resurrection are important when all is said and done.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

What are your defention of good and evil?

According to Catholic teaching evil does not exist so I am really disturbed whether you are following your teaching or not,

So according to you God takes the credit from a prophet who he has sent!?

Can you please give me your post number?

Which post?

We have to be cognitively open to evil and experience evil to learn so you can then perform an evil act otherwise it is impossible. How evil could come in the first place if everything was created good?

You cannot love freely. You experience things and they might put you in an emotional situation so called love. You however can reject love for something else like hate. But you cannot possibly hate if you are not cognitively open to it and have never experienced it. So the main trouble is what was the main source of evil in the first place? The evil couldn’t possibly exist in a good creation since you can only expect good from good in a good creation.

I don’t understand how this is related to the topic.

I drop a system of belief once I find an error within assuming that is given by God.

Sorry I don’t know how to do that quote thing like you do to be able to answer you. Also, if you know how to do that, you’ll also know how to make a list of all my posts and read them. You may find them interesting. I can’t take the time to go back. I’m sorry. I really like this forum but it does take some of my time, of which I don’t have much.

So quick, but not because I think it’ll do much good so it’ll have to end after this.

1. Good is God. Evil is satan.
2. The catholic church teaches evil, as does any christian church.
3. Don’t understand the idea of God taking the credit for a prophet. It’s the other way around. And you missed the most important point I was trying to make. Which I will not repeat, please reread your question and my answer if you’re really interested.
4. No time to look up my posts - you can do that if you please.
5. If you’re not loving freely, it’s NOT love.
6. God doesn’t make mistakes. No dropping HIS system of belief.

One last thing. You seem to be possessed with the idea of being cognitive to evil. I believe every single poster here is cognitive to evil. What you kind of have to decide is if you want to be open and cognitive to evil or start concentrating on being open and cognitive to good and serving the good in this life and try to diminish the evil as much as you can since it leads to nothing “good”. Not knowing you, I hesitate to go further than that. I can only say that satan is a liar and a deceiver.

Keep thinking and searching and stay open to the good, since your eternal self is at stake.

God bless

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Which has been my question for the past 40 yrs and to which I have stopped looking for an answer –

God bless

Yes, perhaps that is the end result of my searching as well.

I am 75 and it is close to the end times for me anyway.