Original Sin question

  • Thread starter Thread starter laocmo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And you no longer have an equal partnership with men. It SPECIFICALLY says so in Genesis.

You have continuously asked why things are as they appear to be. Why things aren’t perfect. Including the relationship between men and women. You actually posted a link to indicate that specific problem.

And you insist that all problems are the result of original sin. Yet when I agree with you, when I give you the answer that you actually want, when I agree that that problem results from original sin and it is a punishment, decreed by God, there is so much back peddling that the tyres are melting.

Your views are so contradictory that I’m not exactly sure what you really believe.
Dont worry, between the abortions cancelling out God’s punishment of women and their demands to take on toils of the land, we are almost all one gender and we can get along famously except for when we try to couple lol.
 
I did not say that,
Sorry, Vico, this is what I misread:
40.png
Vico:
The inclination, susceptibility to temptation, is not sin
see the Catechism 405 and 406 below. From Aristotle we have the distinction between 1) intellect, as the intuitive faculty, and 2) reason, as the discursive or inferential faculty. The judgement of reason may be effected by passions.
Yes, the judgment of reason may be effected by passions. It is effected by emotions, drives, resentment, desires, etc.

These do not seem to conflict with this premise: Humans are inclined to do what they think is best, but are capable of sin.

Another way of wording it: Human inclination to do what he thinks is best is the strongest inclination in human nature.

Do those two wordings necessarily conflict with CCC 405& 406?

Thanks for your continued resourcefulness.
 
Yes this is inaccurate. Concupiscence is this inclination and it is contrary to the human nature God created.
So, there are cases of this inclination demonstrated that are not in accordance with human nature?

It is important to distinguish a “general feeling of negativity toward the human”, which is a devaluation in the mind of man, from delineation of human natural capacities, which come from God, and are exhibited in actual human behavior. Feel free to question this “importance”.
 
No because we inherit Original sin. Everyone born today has the stain of original sin and therefore would need to be baptised.
What are you thinking this “stain” is, simpleas? If I have asked you before, no need to respond.

Always Blessings
 
Original sin is very hard to comprehend but precisely understandable in the context of theology.
So, question for you: Is it contrary to the Catholic faith to say that the human has a major inclination to do what he thinks is best, but is capable of sin (sin as an offensive act) because the passions, appetites (emotions, desires, etc.) effect his ability to reason?

The theological context is as follows:

Man has only one creator, God, of his nature.
God is omnibenevolent, and his creature, the human, is created in this image.
Though the passions and appetites are not of God’s nature, they serve the human in terms of his own survival and ability to thrive.

Thank you; I appreciate your response!
 
Only if you read it with a fundamentalist’s lens.
Indeed. The Catholic position appears to be that all this happened. Up to a point.

There was an original couple. Things were perfect to start. They both sinned. They were punished. Things are now not as good as they were.

In amongst all that it appears there is some leeway in what everyone accepts as being actually true.

This bit is OK. That bit is OK. But where God specifically is meant to have said something? Well, nah. That bit didn’t really happen. Yeah, women are, and have been dominated by men since the go get, but just becuase God said specifically that that was a punishment for Eve’s sin…well, that just doesn’t sound too good so that is a ‘fundamentalist reading’.

I’ve got this great idea for the church. They should issue a bible that has everything highlighted in different colours. Green for things that must be taken literally. Yellow for things that you can interpret as you will. And red for things that are meant to be read as metaphorical. That is, any other interpretation is strictly for the fundies - God having feathers and saying that women are to be punished and animals two by two.

So are you actually going to colour red what God is meant to have said? Because the bible then becomes: The Word Of God *
  • See legend on inside cover.
 
Sorry, Vico, this is what I misread:

Yes, the judgment of reason may be effected by passions. It is effected by emotions, drives, resentment, desires, etc.

These do not seem to conflict with this premise: Humans are inclined to do what they think is best, but are capable of sin.

Another way of wording it: Human inclination to do what he thinks is best is the strongest inclination in human nature.

Do those two wordings necessarily conflict with CCC 405& 406?

Thanks for your continued resourcefulness.
That is a conflict with the Catechism. That is not a correct statement of the situation rather, human inclination is to gratify the senses, but not to do the good of the entire human nature.

The object of the sensuous appetite is the gratification of the senses; the object of the rational appetite is the good of the entire human nature. Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts which we do not have including absence of concupiscence.

CCC 405 … “inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”.

CCC 407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.

Catholic Encyclopedia, Concupiscence

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is the good of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end.

Ming, J. (1908). Concupiscence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm
 
What are you thinking this “stain” is, simpleas? If I have asked you before, no need to respond.

Always Blessings
Well to me a stain means a mark that isn’t easily removed. Hence we are all of a sinful nature even after baptism.

I can’t remember if the CCC actually uses the word stained? Maybe it’s a translated medieval word, I don’t think it’s even used in the Mass liturgy.

We are born without the preternatural gifts of the first humans, that isn’t the same as being stained. When I think of stained I sometimes imagine a branded type fork imprinted on our soul as a sign we belong to the devil, until it is removed by baptism.

Being born without something sounds better, because one can always seek to find that something.
Being born separate from God, never sits comfortable with me, or separating oneself from God…
 
Well to me a stain means a mark that isn’t easily removed. Hence we are all of a sinful nature even after baptism.

I can’t remember if the CCC actually uses the word stained? Maybe it’s a translated medieval word, I don’t think it’s even used in the Mass liturgy.

We are born without the preternatural gifts of the first humans, that isn’t the same as being stained. When I think of stained I sometimes imagine a branded type fork imprinted on our soul as a sign we belong to the devil, until it is removed by baptism.

Being born without something sounds better, because one can always seek to find that something.
Being born separate from God, never sits comfortable with me, or separating oneself from God…
Catechism 491 uses the phrase “stain of original sin”, it refers to the Immaculate Conception there. From the Council of Trent, the word guilt is used:
  1. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema.
That guilt is the reatus poena or imputed guilt. The stain of original sin is lack of the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace.

The preternatural gifts were: infused wisdom, integrity, i.e., freedom from concupiscence, and immortality.
 
Indeed. The Catholic position appears to be that all this happened. Up to a point.

There was an original couple. Things were perfect to start. They both sinned. They were punished. Things are now not as good as they were.
Yes.
In amongst all that it appears there is some leeway in what everyone accepts as being actually true.
Correct.
This bit is OK. That bit is OK.
Yep.
But where God specifically is meant to have said something? Well, nah. That bit didn’t really happen.
Do you have a problem with this: The Bible says God is like this. God is like that. But where God is specifically said to have feathers? Well, nah. That bit isn’t to be taken literally.

Remember, friend, the Bible does say SPECIFICALLY that God has feathers.

Are you going to assert here that the God of the Bible has feathers?
I’ve got this great idea for the church. They should issue a bible that has everything highlighted in different colours. Green for things that must be taken literally. Yellow for things that you can interpret as you will. And red for things that are meant to be read as metaphorical. That is, any other interpretation is strictly for the fundies - God having feathers and saying that women are to be punished and animals two by two.
So are you actually going to colour red what God is meant to have said? Because the bible then becomes: The Word Of God *
  • See legend on inside cover.
That would be a good thing to assert in a forum for Christians that don’t have a magisterium.

The above already happens in our Church, Bradski. 🙂

Incidentally, do you know when Science will produce a book that has everything highlighted in different colors? Green for things that all science-believers must believe. Yellow for things you can interpret as you will. And red for things that are meant to be taken as metaphorical.

Wouldn’t that be helpful?
 
Good Morning, Vico

Here was the statement I put forth:

Humans are inclined to do what they think is best, but are capable of sin.
That is a conflict with the Catechism. That is not a correct statement of the situation rather, human inclination is to gratify the senses, but not to do the good of the entire human nature.

The object of the sensuous appetite is the gratification of the senses; the object of the rational appetite is the good of the entire human nature. Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts which we do not have including absence of concupiscence.

CCC 405 … “inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”.
If a human is seeking to gratify his senses, does that mean he is not doing what he thinks is best? You see, we already determined this:
40.png
Vico:
see the Catechism 405 and 406 below. From Aristotle we have the distinction between 1) intellect, as the intuitive faculty, and 2) reason, as the discursive or inferential faculty. The judgement of reason may be effected by passions.
So, the human seeking to gratify his senses will still be in his own “judgment of reason” doing what he thinks is best, though his “judgment of reason” is altered.

Therefore, where is the conflict with the Catechism?

Thanks
 
So are you actually going to colour red what God is meant to have said? Because the bible then becomes: The Word Of God *
  • See legend on inside cover.
Not sure what you mean here?

Could you please 'splain?
 
Well to me a stain means a mark that isn’t easily removed. Hence we are all of a sinful nature even after baptism.

I can’t remember if the CCC actually uses the word stained? Maybe it’s a translated medieval word, I don’t think it’s even used in the Mass liturgy.

We are born without the preternatural gifts of the first humans, that isn’t the same as being stained. When I think of stained I sometimes imagine a branded type fork imprinted on our soul as a sign we belong to the devil, until it is removed by baptism.

Being born without something sounds better, because one can always seek to find that something.
Being born separate from God, never sits comfortable with me, or separating oneself from God…
Hi Simpleas,

Well, we are born without wisdom.

Do you think we have a sinful nature? Or is it more like “we are capable of sin.”?

The “stain” makes sense for people who have a lower opinion of humanity, who think of us as more of a negative value than the “unstained” approach.
 
I’ve got this great idea for the church. They should issue a bible that has everything highlighted in different colours. Green for things that must be taken literally. Yellow for things that you can interpret as you will. And red for things that are meant to be read as metaphorical. That is, any other interpretation is strictly for the fundies - God having feathers and saying that women are to be punished and animals two by two.
Interestingly, I just happened to come across this article:

sciencenews.org/article/poll-quantum-physicists-shows-agreement-disagreement-and-something-between

It seems that science has the very same paradigm to which you are objecting.

"A few suggested he might turn out to be right someday, and others said “we’ll just have to wait and see.”

:hmmm:

Do you wish to remove this double standard and turn your objection to the world of science as well?

Or are you ok with some things in science being Pretty Dern Sure. Some things being Not Sure Yet. Yes?
 
Do you have a problem with this: The Bible says God is like this. God is like that. But where God is specifically said to have feathers? Well, nah. That bit isn’t to be taken literally.

Remember, friend, the Bible does say SPECIFICALLY that God has feathers.
So colour that bit red. It sounds metaphorical in any case. I can’t see any reason not to accept it as such.

But when God actually says something, is actually quoted, verbatim, then colour that…well, I guess the colour depends on whether you actually want Him to have said it or whether it is best if He didn’t.

When God says something in the bible, which is the word of God, could you explain the process whereby you determine which colour pen you are going to use?
Incidentally, do you know when Science will produce a book that has everything highlighted in different colors? Green for things that all science-believers must believe. Yellow for things you can interpret as you will. And red for things that are meant to be taken as metaphorical.

Wouldn’t that be helpful?
You seem to be under a missaprehension regarding science. Nothing is metaphorical (unless you are using a metaphor to describe a complex idea). The only thing that is meant to be taken as a given is evidence (assuming it has been collected correctly). And everything else, and I mean literally everything else, is provisional. That is, you are allowed to interpret the evidence any way you like as long as it conforms with your theory.

Hence the disagreement in that article to which you linked. When you are discussing quantum theory, there are many theories that match the evidence. There are many interpretations. All matching the evidence.

Whereas in the bible…well, that last statement pretty well matches whatbwe get there as well. Here is the evidence - the written word. Here is my theory - which appears to match it. Hence many interpretations.

So what is your theory which determines that when God is quoted as saying something, we are to treat it as metaphor or fact? We can then use it for other examples.
 
Hi Simpleas,

Well, we are born without wisdom.

Do you think we have a sinful nature? Or is it more like “we are capable of sin.”?

The “stain” makes sense for people who have a lower opinion of humanity, who think of us as more of a negative value than the “unstained” approach.
The latter.

Adam and Eve did not have sinful nature, yet were capable of sin…
 
So colour that bit red. It sounds metaphorical in any case. I can’t see any reason not to accept it as such.
Scratch a fundamentalist…🙂

I propose that you go to a forum of educated folks and announce, “The God of the Bible has feathers!” and see how you are received. 🙂
But when God actually says something, is actually quoted,
Did you know that God actually says, is actually quoted, as saying “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.”

I suppose with your atheistic lens you must announce that the God of the Bible commands his followers to cut off our hands if we sin!

Yep, scratch an atheist…
find a fundamentalist.
verbatim,
Emmm…no. You may have forgotten this from a previous discussion, but you’ve already been corrected on this.

The Bible is not believed to be quoting God “verbatim”.

Remember?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12462325

Did you forget this already?

Or did you forget you are on a Catholic forum and believe you are in dialogue with Muslims about the Koran? Yes, they do indeed profess that the Koran is the Word of God transcribed, “verbatim”, by Muhammed.

But let me repeat something that we’ve already established since you are in dialogue with (mainly) Catholics:

We Catholics note a difference between the* ipsisima verba* and the ipsisima vox of God. That is, God’s words themselves and God’s voice itself.
 
Emmm…no. You may have forgotten this from a previous discussion, but you’ve already been corrected on this.

The Bible is not believed to be quoting God “verbatim”.

Remember?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12462325

Did you forget this already?

Or did you forget you are on a Catholic forum and believe you are in dialogue with Muslims about the Koran? Yes, they do indeed profess that the Koran is the Word of God transcribed, “verbatim”, by Muhammed.

But let me repeat something that we’ve already established since you are in dialogue with (mainly) Catholics:

We Catholics note a difference between the* ipsisima verba* and the ipsisima vox of God. That is, God’s words themselves and God’s voice itself.
From an article by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin:

"Christians have recognized since the beginning that there is paraphrase in the Gospels.

It isn’t unreasonable to see this as a reconstructed “type conversation,” with the leper saying the type of thing people would say to Jesus when asking to be healed and Jesus saying the type of thing he customarily replied with."
 
This is an interesting concept. I wonder how that works, exactly?
Adam and Eve sin. God kicks them out of the Garden of Eden. So are we.
We suffer the same punishment.
Perhaps you are equating experiencing the the consequences of sins as the same thing as 'being responsible for the sins of others"? I don’t think these are the same thing.
I used the example of a parking ticket.

You get a letter from the city. Apparently you got a parking ticket. Reading closer, you see that the license plate number is transposed and the car make/model is incorrect so someone else clearly did the parking violation but you got the notice in the mail.

So you go to the hearing and argue your case. You show proof you didn’t do it.

The judge rules against you and fines you $100 for the parking ticket.

You’re not responsible for the parking violation, but you are being held responsible.
You didn’t do the deed, but you’re paying the price.
To say that “we have original sin put on us” seems to reflect a victim viewpoint in which one is being punished.
Hello! I didn’t eat that forbidden fruit! If I were in the Garden of Eden and had only one rule I’d follow it no problem! But I don’t have that option. I’ll never have that option.

So yeah, I’m punished. So are everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top