Original Sin question

[guanophore]

Yes, well let’s investigate!

PR, as a preview of how this may consummate, there is another investigatory thread to consider.

You see, PR, human beings really do not have a desire to go “against”. God. They only do so because they lack sufficient awareness. If they really knew the VALUE of God’s laws, of course they would follow them!

 

[Vico]

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?

The Catechism clearly shows the teaching on concupiscence, not present in man until after the fall of Adam and Eve, and it is an inclination to evil. Since the freedom from it was a gift and not a natural condition, we retain it upon loss of the gift, with the exception of our Lord and The Blessed Virgin Mary. The Apostle St. Paul describes the weakness of fallen nature by reason of concupiscence (Rom. 7, 14-25).

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence" …

 

[PRmerger]

PR, as a preview of how this may consummate, there is another investigatory thread to consider.

You see, PR, human beings really do not have a desire to go “against”. God. They only do so because they lack sufficient awareness. If they really knew the VALUE of God’s laws, of course they would follow them!

Yes. It is indeed a peculiar twisting of a very basic truth: it’s really stupid to sin.

I think the common understanding that most of us have is: we may not know “everything”, but we know “enough” (or ought to) to avoid the particular activity. And yet we choose it anyway.

 

[OneSheep]

The Catechism clearly shows the teaching on concupiscence, not present in man until after the fall of Adam and Eve, and it is an inclination to evil. Since the freedom from it was a gift and not a natural condition, we retain it upon loss of the gift, with the exception of our Lord and The Blessed Virgin Mary. The Apostle St. Paul describes the weakness of fallen nature by reason of concupiscence (Rom. 7, 14-25).

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence" …

Good Morning, Vico

Yes, we have covered this earlier. You have done an excellent job of presenting the claim that people have an inclination to do evil, that we have the capacity to do evil. I have given support for the observation that people have an even greater inclination to love and do good, and you have not presented anything contrary to this observation from doctrine.

When we get into depth on this, you have seen (I hope) the non-contradictory demonstration of people’s beauty and goodness. I continue to stand by St. Augustine’s claim: “Through the Spirit we see that whatever exists in any way is good”. There is plenty of room in the Church for different approaches to this. You do an excellent job of presenting one approach, and I continue to respect and honor your efforts.

If you would like to go into depth again on “concupiscence”, please let me know!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi PR!

Yes. It is indeed a peculiar twisting of a very basic truth: it’s really stupid to sin.

Yes, it is really stupid to sin! It is a basic truth, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. So, I don’t know what the “it” is you are referring to. Perhaps I should restart that thread? Let me know, I truly respect your opinion.

I think the common understanding that most of us have is: we may not know “everything”, but we know “enough” (or ought to) to avoid the particular activity. And yet we choose it anyway.

There was a group of people who killed Christ, and they did not know enough to avoid that particular activity. We can say that they should have known better, but they did not. What they did was really “stupid”, but understandable given their scope and mindset.

God Bless your day!

 

[PRmerger]

There was a group of people who killed Christ, and they did not know enough to avoid that particular activity. We can say that they should have known better, but they did not. What they did was really “stupid”, but understandable given their scope and mindset.

God Bless your day!

OhmyGOSH, yes! That is a perfect example.

These men should be held culpable for their choice to kill the Eternal Logos.

They had enough evidence, “if today you hear his voice, harden not your heart”, yet chose to act anyway.

They had the knowledge.

And they willingly chose to do the worst act of humanity that was ever committed: deicide.

 

[OneSheep]

OhmyGOSH, yes! That is a perfect example.

These men should be held culpable for their choice to kill the Eternal Logos.

They had enough evidence, “if today you hear his voice, harden not your heart”, yet chose to act anyway.

They had the knowledge.

And they willingly chose to do the worst act of humanity that was ever committed: deicide.

Well, we can say that they had enough evidence, but our Lord observed that they did not know what they were doing.

Yes, we are called to not harden our hearts! This, again, is a discipline. We hear many voices, PR, do we all have the wisdom to distinguish His? Even St. Paul expressed his inability to see everything clearly.

Can we go back to my post 294?

 

[PRmerger]

Can we go back to my post 294?

Would you mind first answering the question I posed earlier?

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?

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico

Yes, we have covered this earlier. You have done an excellent job of presenting the claim that people have an inclination to do evil, that we have the capacity to do evil. I have given support for the observation that people have an even greater inclination to love and do good, and you have not presented anything contrary to this observation from doctrine.

When we get into depth on this, you have seen (I hope) the non-contradictory demonstration of people’s beauty and goodness. I continue to stand by St. Augustine’s claim: “Through the Spirit we see that whatever exists in any way is good”. There is plenty of room in the Church for different approaches to this. You do an excellent job of presenting one approach, and I continue to respect and honor your efforts.

If you would like to go into depth again on “concupiscence”, please let me know!

No, no. It is a confirmed teaching of the Catholic Church that the inclination is to sin, since the fall, and we are born into that state. There is no greater inclination to do good, rather there is grace, the totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim, and God given charisms which do not represent inclinations but grace. Grace includes, among other things, such blessings as miraculous gifts of prophecy or of healing and the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

 

[OneSheep]

Would you mind first answering the question I posed earlier?

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?

Not that I can think of, right off the bat. I could provide more background concerning the issue you brought up (divorce), but I still think that it would be too far off topic here. Would you like me to PM you on that?

 

[PRmerger]

Not that I can think of, right off the bat.

Thank you for responding.

And I think this answer speaks volumes.

I do think that if a person claims to be a follower of Christ but cannot “think of, right off the bat” an example, then it’s entirely warranted to assert that this person’s religion comes from his own personal views, rather than from Christ and His Church.

This may sting a bit, and I apologize for this, but sometimes, one needs to be inoculated with the truth. And one cannot deny that injections sting a bit! :sad_yes:

 

[OneSheep]

No, no. It is a confirmed teaching of the Catholic Church that the inclination is to sin, since the fall, and we are born into that state. There is no greater inclination to do good, rather there is grace, the totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim, and God given charisms which do not represent inclinations but grace. Grace includes, among other things, such blessings as miraculous gifts of prophecy or of healing and the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

Hi Vico,

Do you have doctrine that states that we do not have a greater inclination to do what we think is good?

It depends on the person deciding, of course, and their understanding of “good”.

Are you familiar with phenomenology? I have a cursory understanding, and I think there are some good concepts to incorporate. It has to do with “taking people from where they are.”

 

[PRmerger]

Well, we can say that they had enough evidence, but our Lord observed that they did not know what they were doing.

Yes–they did not know that he was God, because they heard his voice and hardened their hearts.

But hear his voice they did.

Yes, we are called to not harden our hearts! This, again, is a discipline. We hear many voices, PR, do we all have the wisdom to distinguish His?

Each of us has been given what we need to distinguish.

That we choose to create our own truths is where we are culpable.

Even St. Paul expressed his inability to see everything clearly.

And yet he conformed his views to Christs.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, well let’s investigate!

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.

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

Yes, I would like you to pick one.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. It is indeed a peculiar twisting of a very basic truth: it’s really stupid to sin.

I dont’ think anyone is suggesting that it is not stupid to sin. But human beings do not sin deliberately. They sin because they are blind and ignorant.

I think the common understanding that most of us have is: we may not know “everything”, but we know “enough” (or ought to) to avoid the particular activity. And yet we choose it anyway.

Human beings only choose evil because they do not see the value in other people.

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

Do you have doctrine that states that we do not have a greater inclination to do what we think is good?

It depends on the person deciding, of course, and their understanding of “good”.

Are you familiar with phenomenology? I have a cursory understanding, and I think there are some good concepts to incorporate. It has to do with “taking people from where they are.”

What you posted before, and that I answered to, is “I have given support for the observation that people have an even greater inclination to love and do good, and you have not presented anything contrary to this observation from doctrine.”

What you ask in that last post is a different question, answered already.

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace (gratia sanans) to fulfil the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time. (Sent. certa.) – Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 236.

And from Council of Trent, Session 6:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

 

[OneSheep]

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).

Hi David,

In context, Bob and I were discussing concupiscence, which describes a tendency, not an action. I think that we can all agree on actions that are hurtful/sinful.

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

If you would like to go into depth again on “concupiscence”, please let me know!

Yes there are still a number of good threads available on this topic!

Unfortunately some have been closed, though the topic can be revisited.

A different perspective of the story of the Fall can yield a number of creative results, and changing some of the foundations of the discussion can also add a fresh perspective:

So, for the reader, “concupiscence” is strong desire. Humans are chock-full of strong desires, they are part of our nature: We desire status, sex, “feel good”, power, dominance, control, wealth, territory, and a host of other common things, some which affect our minds, others not so much.

Was Adam and Eve’s wanting of wisdom and power not “concupiscence”? This is a contradiction of assertions. On the one hand, Adam was “human” which means he has strong desires, on the other hand he was “prenatural” which means he does not have strong desires. Evidence of strong desire to me is there because they badly wanted the wisdom and power, so they should be considered normal, concupiscence-laden humans…For the purposes of this thread, “human” includes “having concupiscence”.

In context, Bob and I were discussing concupiscence, which describes a tendency, not an action. I think that we can all agree on actions that are hurtful/sinful.

God Bless

It is a normal human tendency to have strong desires, but that does not equate to haivng to sin.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi PR,

I’m going to start with “B”, because I think that it is more common today than “A” for the scenario you presented.

So, the man did not value the Church’s teachings in the first place. He has asserted that he is acting according to his own “well-formed conscience”. So, he has decided that he wants to decide for himself what is good and evil, no matter what the Church says, which to him is insignificant.

Why does he see what the Church says as insignificant? Keep in mind we both know what he “should” do. This is a different question. What is it that can be traced to his nature to want to decide good and evil for himself in this case, in the context of a person who does not value Church teachings?

Thanks!

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

Do you have doctrine that states that we do not have a greater inclination to do what we think is good?

It depends on the person deciding, of course, and their understanding of “good”.

Are you familiar with phenomenology? I have a cursory understanding, and I think there are some good concepts to incorporate. It has to do with “taking people from where they are.”

Also, from birth, mankind is inclined to sin and this is called concupiscence, which means the what a person thinks is good is sin.