Original Sin Revisited

[AndyF]

From NewAdvent/Original Sin:

1. … Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

From Summa:

4:1-11… “Since angels have in them no matter or bodiliness at all, for they are pure spirit, they are not individuated. This means that each angel is the only one of it’s kind. It means that each angel is a species.”

Angels cannot be stigmatized with original sin because they are all individual species. Men can because they pass on to children in a hereditary fashion.

But what does substantial limitations and/or advantages have to do with free will and the mechanism that invokes it’s use which they are all susceptible to.?

If the species or inheritance is the overriding reason to/not to stigmatize, then any universal court would need to ignore the fact that they are common in the area of persuasion or influence across genus(a spirit kind that found them to have the common trait in the process of decision making) is what occured, and here I’m refering to satan influencing the other angels to sin.

This rule sets a precedence. It allows that species man cannot be responsible for the sin influenced by species demon, therefore Adam is not culpable.

It is evidence that this is the way these cases needed to be handled, by the potentiality to be persuaded to sin and to make a wrong choice. When man is the culprit it seems we have a switch of reasoning.

What could be said for the reason of this special handling.? No one knows. It could have something to do with image and the portrayal of these special servants in a celestial ministry as being above reproach. Scandal would not be welcome here, hence the permanent removal of the remainder’s ability to sin and their beatification.

But we can use this case file for ourselves. Maybe one day when we produce our own aware machines and a few turn hostile we can escape liability for damage by tagging a different model number on each one at production. The prosecution may try to introduce that each can be planted with the same destructive program, but we as robot makers can declare that inadmissible and simply state they are all different from each other.

AndyF

 

[bogeydogg]

The difference is that each angel which chose to follow Satan was in the presence of God when he did so. In doing so, they deliberately chose evil knowing full well what was good and thus are culpable each unto themselves.

In the fall you will notice of course that Adam was not first in line to eat the fruit of the tree but rather it was Eve who being deceived by the serpent, being the very Father of Lies, committed a sin, true, but one of an innocent in the presence of that which was greater than herself. However, when she presented the fruit to Adam, Adam knew full well that what had she done was sin and there was no serpent around to induce him to eat. So, therefore, knowing it was wrong and that what she had done was wrong and having the specific command of God ringing in his ears without any outside coercive influence from Satan, deliberately and in full knowledge of what he was doing chose to eat and sin.

Two things.

1. This is why the Bible explicitly states that the Fall is Adam’s and not Eve’s, and sin for which we are all born culpable is Adam’s and not Eve’s.
2. You will also notice that the Church defines Mortal Sin as the sin in kind of which the Angels and Adam committed, having full knowledge, intent and willing to sin anyway, and not Eve’s being an innocent who was deceived.

 

[AndyF]

bogeydogg:

Very observant! Good point.

It should be remembered that Adam is seen as the Father of man in references of this sort, even though his case is one of compounding. According to Doctrine Eve is also guilty.

However I feel my argument still stands. Eve had the first one-on-one with satan that is true, but when we apply our yardstick to Eve, we find the rule still holds. Eve is a human species therefore not culpable. Eve you will remember tells Adam that the serpent says it is OK to eat. Eve doesn’t know the species rule, and therefore innocent through a technicality. Even if she has assistance by satan, species is again a barrier preventing our assignment. Adam takes an apple from innocent Eve.

Ok, here is where I feel she would be culpable. Remove satan from the scene, and simply make her hungry(nature) as a motive, and you have a culpable Eve and Adam falling suit.

Even if we consider consecutive temptations by demons to every man through the eons, one can see the rule applies.

I admit though I had not given full study on natural temptations.

(2) Makes my point. The emphasis was placed on these factors in the case of men, on angels they became irrelevant or secondary.

AndyF

 

[bogeydogg]

Of course except that the condition of the angels determines the degree of their guilt. Why is it that there is no redemption for the demons? I would suggest, though of course I am in no fashion intimating any sort of authority this is gospel according to me, that the severity of the judgment upon the demons is that they refused God while they were in the presence of God. It is akin to my child sneaking into my room and playing with something I have forbidden him to play with like a toy that he’s been grounded from and him picking up the toy I have just expressly forbidden him to play with right to my face and telling me he’s doing it anyway. To which circumstance am I likely to be more angry? In the sin of the angels they have not only the act of defying God but the increased guilt of defying God right to God’s face.

In Eve’s sin, I think what we see is a perfect example of venial sin. It is not any less sin, but because it is sin committed in ignorance or innocence it could be said to be not mortal in nature. Adam however had been specifically instructed by his Creator to not touch the fruit, and seeing what Eve had done decided that he would not only defy God but also intentionally listen to Eve instead of God. It is a more aggreigous offense because of the added determination to sin without being deceived but to instead follow him own will in open forethought defiance against the specific will of God.

BTW, I am not excusing Eve here. I think that Eve was guilty of sin but that her sin did not rise to the level of Adam’s sin. Paul make that clear in Romans when he indicates that before God gives us over to sin we first must turn our back to God by refusing the clear knowledge of a Creator and following our own lusts. For this reason, says Paul, God gives us up to all uncleanness etc. Paul is saying I think, that there is the sins of children for which, while they are sins, they are not culpable as an adult who deliberately sins against the promptings of his own conscience. I think that while what Eve did was sinful, since, as you have pointed out, she was heavily influenced by Hell itself, her deception as such is understandable. Which BTW Paul also points out in Corinthians, I can’t remember which letter, that Eve was deceived but Adam chose which is why, as the federal head of us all, that choice is where the fall of all humanity comes from.

It also worth noting that the Church does not hold infants culpable of sin either and based upon His attitude toward them expressed in the Gospels I don’t think the Lord Jesus did either.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think also it is worth noting that Eve’s and Adam’s sins were not listening to a demon nut in disobeying the word given them by God. It is not merely that we decide to listen to natural temptation, sexual gluttonous, etc., it is that we decide our own way is better than God’s. It is for this reason that all sin, in some way or another, is idolatrous because in order to sin we first must decide that the love of ourselves is higher or of greater worth than the love we should rightly hold for God.

 

[AndyF]

Of course except that the condition of the angels determines the degree of their guilt. Why is it that there is no redemption for the demons?

There could have been a possibility of redemption in their case if the same standard were applied to angels as it was to men, bringing about the same stigmatization based on sin potential and initiated through the first angel who fell for the persuasion.

…that the severity of the judgment upon the demons is that they refused God while they were in the presence of God.

I agree. The proximity to God as higher echelon beings who needed no Faith and who have superior intellects and should have known better calls for a more severe handling. If eating a forbidden apple by a lessor being deserves stigmatization of all of their kind, what is deserving of celestial treason.?

(As an aside, on another thread I suggested that angels could be selected from the pool of humans who have never sinned. This way we can prove once and for all that some beings can indeed become perfect down here. Since Jesus says it’s possible, then there should be thousands that have qualified by now.)

Adam however had …forethought defiance against the specific will of God.

All the same it still is the result of demonic temptation.

Paul is saying I think, that there is the sins of children for which, while they are sins, they are not culpable as an adult who deliberately sins against the promptings of his own conscience.

The judgment of children falls into that same scrutiny, and consciences are formed at a very early age, and I mean early. Trust me, I’m a grandfather. You will note the sins of nations are hardly mentioned and side stepped and kept short. If mentioned at all, they are only given reminders in effect to do a good job. What is of interest to us who are potential furnace fuel, is that they are also entities that make free will choices.

But a point on justice since we are drifting a little that way. Those in hell deserve assurance that justice is being carried out in complete fairness to everyone AFTER their own sentencing, and yes I said deserving. It is up to the judged to ensure that their system is functioning fairly, and not just at the point of trial. I doubt children’s cases will illicit from the damned, teddy bear, tummy warming sentiments along with the news that sinning nations, who collectively commit deliberate mortal sins with impunity in the form they have chosen to sin, don’t receive damnation in that form, (BTW: an excellent defense argument). Neither will they feel comfort in the fact that these Fathers you mention remain consistently politically correct in not bringing up the issues of these other entities. THIS is a real sin to humanity.

Justice has three aspects.

1/ Justice has it concerns offender and victim. (Church emphasis.)
2/ Justice in how it relates to other cases and other entities.
3/ Justice as it concerns society and divine institutions .

1/ God as victim.
2/ 3/ God has judge.

I wonder if heaven is ready for a democratic justice system.?

AndyF

 

[bogeydogg]

I believe Heaven to be an absolute autocracy. I think the judgment of the demons demonstrates this quite well. We have no need to worry about whether jdgment meeted out is fair or not because it is not fair at all. What would be fair is for every human being that ever lived to burn in Hell for all eternity for treason against a Holy God. That would be fair.

We also have no need to wonder whether judgment is just. The Judge is the embodiment of justice. The Judge is of a character that to question His judgment is laughable. God is perfect. This is a fundamental tenant of the Catholic Faith and to open the idea that we may fairly question the judgment of the judge is to question God’s right to rule. We have no basis or right to ask such question.

As far as the souls in Hell wondering if they were treated fairly, I think there can be little doubt that they deserve to be there (see above) and that judge has ruled justly (see above) so I think the question as to whether or not a damned soul feels it has been treated fairly is irrelevant.

When the Holiness of God was driven home to me was when I heard R.C. Sproul say, “Some may ask why does God save some and not others? The question, beloved, is why did God bother to save any? Remember, when it comes to the fairness of God, some get justice and some get mercy.”

 

[AndyF]

We also have no need to wonder whether judgment is just. The Judge is the embodiment of justice. The Judge is of a character that to question His judgment is laughable. God is perfect. This is a fundamental tenant of the Catholic Faith and to open the idea that we may fairly question the judgment of the judge is to question God’s right to rule. We have no basis or right to ask such question.

Sometimes it is good to take a point reflection in what has transpired so far. I can see that my original intent of addressing facts and attempting to reconcile them with Dogma, has a tendency to steer in the wrong direction.

I started this thread on the premise that indeed “God is perfect” of course, and thought I could precede from there with the use of this information to help come full circle in an absolute answer that can never be disputed. In this way I could add this to the maturation of my Faith and go on to other issues.

While I had read your answer here early this afternoon, I was still searching for answers. This evening I attended a session by our Bishop on the Pope’s second encyclical on Hope. It occurred to me that the sections on judgement 41/42 were just what I was looking for the remedy of my particular affliction which I diagnosed has indicators of a degrading sense of Hope.

So my thanks go out to you for your heads up, and the Pope’s
inspirational work.

AndyF