Original Sin question

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Sis

My quote:

Great example, PR. So, we have a person who has been told that it is wrong, but either his desire (I’ll use a male) has warped the discipline he values, or he did not value what he was told in the first place. Which one? Or, please suggest an alternative.

Perhaps.

And then he decides to create a god after his own image, “Hey! I know! God does not actually see that sexual behavior as immoral!”

So, we continue looking for a “root cause”, remember? Or not continue, perhaps you are not interested in root causes? If you do wish to designate a root cause, then what we are still looking at is the manifestation of the cause rather than the cause itself, right?

The man is either warped by desire or did not value what he was told in the first place, or both! (I think that is what you meant by “perhaps”?). Next, he decides to create a god after his own image and says, “Hey! I know! God does not actually see that sexual behavior as immoral!” Would you also say that the root cause of this behavior is that his desire has warped the discipline he values, or he did not value what he was told in the first place? Actually, please pick one, for they are contradict one another. If desire warped his values, then he at least had good moral conscience in the first place. If he never had valued what he was told in the first place, then we are talking about a different “root cause” scenario.

Why, the alternative, of course, is to conform your views to Christ’s and the Church.

I think what you meant was that the man should conform his views to Christ’s and the Church, right? Yes, this is a remedy, but it is not a “root cause”.

Thanks for your response!

 

[PRmerger]

So, we continue looking for a “root cause”, remember?

I thought I already answered this.

The root cause is the desire for the power to decide what is good and evil.

The man wants to have sex with another man.

So he decides to create a god that says, “There is nothing wrong with that! Love is love! Love wins!”

 

[PRmerger]

I think what you meant was that the man should conform his views to Christ’s and the Church, right?

Not sure what you’ve said is any different than what I said?

 

[OneSheep]

I thought I already answered this.

The root cause is the desire for the power to decide what is good and evil.

Yes, but we are still looking for the root of this root!

Why do people want to decide for themselves what is good and evil?

We have two options, in the scenario you presented:

Either:

A. The man’s conscience is warped by desire.

B. The man did not value what he had been told in the first place.

C. ?

Do you see? The “power to decide” in itself is simple manifestation of desire for autonomy, and since God wants us to be free, such innate desire is in concert with God’s wishes. The part about deciding “what is good and evil” is more specific, and has other roots involved.

So, please pick A or B, or create a “C”; we are not yet at the bottom of this, right?

Thanks, nice discussion! Love your added images.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but we are still looking for the root of this root!

LOL!

The root is our flawed human nature.

 

[PRmerger]

I think what you meant was that the man should conform his views to Christ’s and the Church, right? Yes, this is a remedy, but it is not a “root cause”.

Thanks for your response!

Just curious, OS: is there a particular moral or spiritual issue where you feel personally one particular way, but that Christ and His Church has declared it to be another way?

 

[simpleas]

Uh, no, simpleas.

Grace is, as its essential characteristic, supernatural.

From our Catechism (emphasis mine):

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and **supernatural **disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Well, I can’t see how there’s anything further than heaven, so…

Gracie is what we need to get to heaven.

The main character from Breaking Bad.

It’s a story of a guy who chooses NOT to cooperate with the supernatural graces that have been infused into him. Instead, he chooses to become…BAD

Oh right, I’ve never watched Breaking Bad.

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh right, I’ve never watched Breaking Bad.

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

 

[OneSheep]

LOL!

The root is our flawed human nature.

Well, now we are back to Bob’s point though, pointing at “concupiscence”. What happens is that the “flaw” in our nature usually does not hold when scrutinized. What does hold is that what God created is good, and under scrutiny what He created is functional and beautiful.

So, if you pick A, B, or invent a “C”, we can see if the “flawed nature” conclusion holds true. Shall we? Or, would you rather stay with the simple assertion, “God’s creation is flawed” and leave it at that?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, now we are back to Bob’s point though, pointing at “concupiscence”. What happens is that the “flaw” in our nature usually does not hold when scrutinized.

How so? I have found it to “hold” quite well under scrutiny.

What does hold is that what God created is good, and under scrutiny what He created is functional and beautiful.

Oh, yes! And the human person is functional and beautiful, but flawed.

So, if you pick A, B, or invent a “C”, we can see if the “flawed nature” conclusion holds true. Shall we?

What’s your view on this?

Or, would you rather stay with the simple assertion, “God’s creation is flawed” and leave it at that?

Oh, I never like to leave discussions “at that”.

That’s why I come to this forum–it’s so deliciously delightful to me to scrutinize and examine and digest all that is presented to us as true!

 

[OneSheep]

Just curious, OS: is there a particular moral or spiritual issue where you feel personally one particular way, but that Christ and His Church has declared it to be another way?

It depends on who does the “declaring”.

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

So you see, there are legitimate differences.

This is off-topic, though. I just try to answer questions.

 

[PRmerger]

It depends on who does the “declaring”.

Is there any other way you know what Christ said, except through His Body, the Catholic Church?

So can you answer the question, please? Is there a particular moral or spiritual issue where you feel personally one particular way, but that Christ and His Church has declared it to be another way?

In the interest of self disclosure I will give mine: If I had my druthers, divorce and re-marriage would NOT be adultery. I’ve had many a friend who has married a loser, then divorced him when she came to her senses, and then found true love with a second honorable man.

If I were God, I wouldn’t make it adultery.

But, I am not God…so I conform my views to His and say,“Divorce and re-marriage is adultery.”

 

[davidv]

Well, now we are back to Bob’s point though, pointing at “concupiscence”. What happens is that the “flaw” in our nature usually does not hold when scrutinized. What does hold is that what God created is good, and under scrutiny what He created is functional and beautiful.

Many of God’s creatures (human), on this very day, will do things that are neither functional, nor beautiful. Some will be absolutely evil. Humans choose evil, God does not. The theory esposed above does not match visible reality, much less the spiritual reality.

So, if you pick A, B, or invent a “C”, we can see if the “flawed nature” conclusion holds true. Shall we? Or, would you rather stay with the simple assertion, “God’s creation is flawed” and leave it at that?

C (not invented) equals a free agents will. Which given enough facts will still choose to disobey, fully knowledgeable of the wrongs of an act.
The denial of original sin and the free exercise of the will is what does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[OneSheep]

Many of God’s creatures (human), on this very day, will do things that are neither functional, nor beautiful. Some will be absolutely evil. Humans choose evil, God does not. The theory esposed above does not match visible reality, much less the spiritual reality.

Hi David,

I was referring to the person himself, not the action. Actions can be extremely counterproductive.

Hopefully that clarifies.

 

[OneSheep]

How so? I have found it to “hold” quite well under scrutiny.

Oh, yes! And the human person is functional and beautiful, but flawed.

Yes, well let’s investigate!

What’s your view on this?

I would go with either A or B, they both definitely happen. Do you want me to pick one? I could probably come up with several C’s, but they are mostly variations of A or B.

Oh, I never like to leave discussions “at that”.

That’s why I come to this forum–it’s so deliciously delightful to me to scrutinize and examine and digest all that is presented to us as true!

Cool! It is great to discuss with someone who puts charity first, which you obviously do.

 

[davidv]

Hi David,

I was referring to the person himself, not the action. Actions can be extremely counterproductive.

Hopefully that clarifies.

Actual it does not clarify.

It is the actions that are at issue. Why? We do not choose who we are. But, we choose what we do.

What is the root, root cause? I say it is pretending to be God because we want, what we want, when we want it, regardless of any other facts at hand. AKA PRIDE (of a disordered kind).

 

[guanophore]

Well, let’s investigate that. Did A&E really say that they didn’t have to listen to God at all? Or did they say, “This fruit looks so good, God must be kidding us.”? In addition, how were they to know that God was not talking to them through the snake?

Catholics are bound to accept the Holy Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

When tempted, no one should say, “- God” is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed 13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. 15Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is fully grown, it gives birth to death 16Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers James 1:14-16.

However from an archetypal psychology view, one could certainly understand that God ws speaking through the snake.

we are not born omniscient…

You seem to be implying that Adam and Eve did not have sufficient knowledge or understanding to make a decision to obey God.

This is consistent with your premise that “no one ever willingly and knowingly rejects God”.

Is your own image of God such that He loves us as least as much as the person who loves you most?

This is a solid Humanistic approach to interpretation, that places human imagination at the center of understanding.

Why do people want to decide what is Good and Evil? (please be specific) I.E., can you quote what might be running through a person’s mind?

Hubris.

4The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.…

Desire.

 :o

Another sin of omission.
Thanks for the info, but I don’t see any reference or implication of “root cause”. Did I miss something?

Indeed. A great MANY things! The “root cause” I was discussing with Bob had to do with what particular aspect of our nature, specifically what aspect of “pride” that “causes” people to say “I don’t have to listen to God”.

. What we are looking for is the root cause of inhibited normal growth in love of others, which is what we were discussing. I think all of it is part of the discussion of original sin.

I agree. If one does not believe in concupiscence, then one will look for other reasons why people do bad things. One will think that the human person “normally grows in love with others” without the interference of any tendency toward sin, and away from God.

 So, we have a person who has been told that it is wrong, but either his desire (I'll use a male) has warped the discipline he values, or he did not value what he was told in the first place.  Which one?  Or, please suggest an alternative.

Sin means that we act against our values.

So, we continue looking for a “root cause”, remember?

Yes, I think this is essential for those who do not accept the Catholic position.

 Or not continue, perhaps you are not interested in root causes?  If you do wish to designate a root cause, then what we are still looking at is the manifestation of the cause rather than the cause itself, right?

There are many that do not seem to be interested. On the other hand, some are interested in designating root causes in such a manner that the Catholic position can be abrogated.

Would you also say that the root cause of this behavior is that his desire has warped the discipline he values, or he did not value what he was told in the first place?  Actually, please pick one, for they are contradict one another.  If desire warped his values, then he at least had good moral conscience in the first place.  If he never had valued what he was told in the first place, then we are talking about a different "root cause" scenario.

Yes, I agree. Or he may have valued it in the beginning, then became warped.

Does God have the perogative to place boundaries around His creation?

 I think what you meant was that the man should conform his views to Christ's and the Church, right?  Yes, this is a remedy, but it is not a "root cause".

We are born into the world under original sin. By definition, our hearts are not conformed to Christs. This is a root cause of turning away from God, and toward evil.

1As for you, you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience.…Eph. 2:1

 

[guanophore]

Yes, but we are still looking for the root of this root!  :)

Yes, some people spend a lifetime looking for something that God has already given, because the answer God has given is not pleasing or acceptable.

Why do people want to decide for themselves what is good and evil?

It is pleasing and delightful.

We have two options, in the scenario you presented:

Either:

A. The man’s conscience is warped by desire.

B. The man did not value what he had been told in the first place.

C. ?

I think you missed something here, OS. Conscience is not necessarily “warped by desire”. Humans can have a perfectly well functioning conscience, as Adam and Eve did, and still choose a warped action.

Having a well formed conscience does not nullify the desires of the flesh. It also does not mean we cannot still choose evil.

Do you see?  The "power to decide" in itself is simple manifestation of desire for autonomy, and since God wants us to be free, such innate desire is in concert with God's wishes.  The part about deciding "what is good and evil" is more specific, and has other roots involved.

Indeed God created us with the power to choose good and evil. He gave the boundaries of what is good and evil, and Adam and Eve chose the evil.

…6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7"If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it. Gen 4:7

They chose NOT to master sin. They chose to indulge desire, and to violate the boundaries given to them by God.

LOL!

The root is our flawed human nature.

For a Humanist, there is no “flawed human nature”. Human nature is as it is meant to be.

Just curious, OS: is there a particular moral or spiritual issue where you feel personally one particular way, but that Christ and His Church has declared it to be another way?

On a great many issues! Good eye PR!

So, please pick A or B, or create a “C”; we are not yet at the bottom of this, right?

Thanks

PR you seem to be resisting this effort to paint you into the corner. For some reason you adamantly want to cling the the Church’s view on this.

If you will just go with it, you will find that all of the Scriptures can be “reinterpreted” in the new and fresh light of human psychology, and you can let go of your archaic views of the warped human person!

Well, now we are back to Bob's point though, pointing at "concupiscence".  What happens is that the "flaw" in our nature usually does not hold when scrutinized.

You see, PR? You need to “scrutinize” this better, and jettison the cumbersome view you are holding!

 What does hold is that what God created is good, and under scrutiny what He created is functional and beautiful.

See PR? Concupiscence is just a figment of our imaginations! If we re-imagine humanity differently, we can be unburdened of it.

So, if you pick A, B, or invent a “C”, we can see if the “flawed nature” conclusion holds true. Shall we? Or, would you rather stay with the simple assertion, “God’s creation is flawed” and leave it at that?

Just bend what is written slightly, and it can be reshaped all together!

Actually, this simplistic formulation does not account for the total of what God has revealed. God created us without a flaw, and the flaw entered when humanity chose to violate the boundaries which were placed around us for our own protection.

 

[guanophore]

It depends on who does the “declaring”.

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

So you see, there are legitimate differences.

This is off-topic, though. I just try to answer questions.

It is not entirely off topic, because there is a strong push here to hold out a rejection of concupiscence as a “legitmate difference”. If possible, it seems that one would like to reject that doctrine, and still be able to claim that one’s views were Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

PR you seem to be resisting this effort to paint you into the corner. For some reason you adamantly want to cling the the Church’s view on this.