Original Sin

[Marc_Anthony]

Actually, post 30 is related to Original Sin.

Only some, not all people do not completely understand the Catholic doctrines related to Original Sin – which results in similar posts all over the forums. My suggestion is for Catholics to spend time studying paragraphs 355 - 421 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

In post 30 he asks, “Why won’t the benefactor let them use the pool?” In other words, why is God not allowing us to have everything we wanted? Meaning that there’s some form of suffering involved. A mere reformulation of the problem of evil.

An Aristotelian, for what it’s worth, would answer that question with, “We don’t know why we weren’t allowed to swim in the pool but since Thomistic logic tells us that God is omnibenevolent we conclude that there must be a good reason.”

That leads to the question of why Thomists believe God must be omnibenevolent, but once again that’s a question for another thread.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Brav3N3wWorld,

Congratulations on making the accurate distinction between original and actual sin!

Now, I can really only work on one idea at a time … getting old! You identified that you are having problems with the Catholic teaching of Original Sin - and you gave the link to the CCC addressing it. But, I was really unable to identify the specific problem you are having with this - except you are having some difficulties here.

Here is the appropriate section - please identify just where it is you are having a difficulty.

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

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". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

I think you have gone about this in the most appropriate way. There is a wealth of wisdom and experience on CAF - and tapping into this treasure trove will benefit all.

God bless

But the Catholic faith doesn’t say that original sin is falling victim to the same temptation. It is something very real and inherited.

The catechism makes a distinction between original sin and actual sin. Original sin is inherited through Adam’s fall and must be washed away when we are baptized. This is why it is so important to have your children baptized ASAP. Maybe here is a good place to post a link to the catechism on the Fall and Original Sin.

I think what you are describing is actual sins, which are the sins we actually commit, either venial or mortal; either sins of commission or sins of omission. I have no problems with the teaching on actual sin. Actual sin makes sense. I should be guilty for misdeeds I actually commit. It’s original sin that is more tricky.

 

[grannymh]

Adam used the pool after all and the world we live in, where children are tortured and genocide takes place, is what we got. The benefactor knew better but He prized the free will of man too much to stop him from jumping in.

He wanted man to live forever but didn’t want sin, (opposition to His perfect will), to endure forever in His universe-and man carried sin since man had distanced himself from that flawless will by jumping into the pool. Gods’ plan of salvation always includes helping, without forcing, man to come to freely see that the pool he chose to jump into isn’t worth swimming in.

Granted God wanted man to share in His divine life through knowledge and love. The question of Original Sin is not quite about God’s wanting man to live forever. The key question is – What did Adam have to do in order to share in God’s Divine Life? The Catechism refers to God establishing Adam in His friendship. What did Adam have to be in order to remain in God’s friendship?

Yes, this may appear nit-picky. So ignore it if you wish. However, it eliminates the possible culpability of the “benefactor”.

 

[grannymh]

May I respectfully point out that the “appropriate section” on Original Sin begins with CCC 374 - 390. At this point there is an interesting section on the Fall of the Angels. The section of Original Sin then begins with CCC 396 and continues through CCC 421.
However, to get a good picture of what man is, I suggest starting at CCC 355.

Original sin is not a page turner.

 

[fhansen]

Granted God wanted man to share in His divine life through knowledge and love. The question of Original Sin is not quite about God’s wanting man to live forever. The key question is – What did Adam have to do in order to share in God’s Divine Life? The Catechism refers to God establishing Adam in His friendship. What did Adam have to be in order to remain in God’s friendship?

Yes, this may appear nit-picky. So ignore it if you wish. However, it eliminates the possible culpability of the “benefactor”.

I’m not sure what you mean here, granny. God desires that none should perish (John 3:16) and yet allow us to perish if we wish. Anyway, yes, He certainly isn’t responsible for our choosing to oppose His will.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Greylorn,

Yours is a very sad post and one with what could easily pass for bitterness. But, saying something isn’t so does not make it vanish.

Creation is the act of God’s Will - I really do not know about ‘imagination’…but, maybe you have a reference on that. Comparing our creativity (with wit, charm, imaginaiton and ability… and anything else that is needed) with that of God’s misses the point and seems to be quite presumptious.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite different from the old Baltimore because it follows themes, provides references from multiple sources and attempts to actually engage the reader. The Baltimore version was more conducive to the memorization format it was taught in. The former appeals to the creative and inquiring mind, while the latter appealed to those in need of brief answers to complex matters that could be readily be maintained at one’s mental ‘fingertips’.

While you have gone far in stating your rejection for several Catholic doctrines, maybe your appreciation for the teaching done by the Norbertine Fathers can give you a reawakened appreciation for the Catholic Faith they believed and taught to their students. I still have a real appreciation for the Christian Brothers who taught me.

God bless

Saying something does not make it so. Like other people who strive to use words honestly, I object strongly to the “co-creator with God” notion. It is simply neurolinguistic programming.

Creation involves conscious imagination. I’ve done a few creative things, so I know. Writing this post, for example, involves a mix of creative and autonomous activities. At the level of conscious mind, I must gather ideas and select word-patterns that might convey them to another mind. In the meantime, my fingers are typing the words pretty much all by themselves— a totally non-creative set of actions that I learned long, long ago. If I think about the typing process, it slows down and becomes less accurate.

I have fathered three, possibly four offspring. I did not manage this by virtue of any creative act whatsoever. All I wanted to do was have sex, a desire fueled by physiological chemistry and my brain’s pre-programmed attraction for a woman. I had no more than the vaguest idea of the actual internal biological mechanics involved in the connection of sperm with egg, and at the time, could not have cared less.

Moreover, intelligence was not even involved. I never wanted to have children-- I only wanted, at that time of my life, to have sex. The offspring were an undesired by-product (who turned out to be good and even interesting people).

When I set out to create something, I begin with a sense of how I want it to turn out. If I’m writing a computer program, it is to perform a certain set of complex logical tasks which I anticipate in advance. If I’m writing a book, I know how it ends. Writing this post, I know in advance what I want it to say.

Impregnating a woman is not like that at all. I had no predictions about the outcome, knowing only that if I formed any, they would all be wrong.

So, I do not buy this “co-creator” nonsense. It abuses the meaning of the word “create” and its derivatives.

I attended 12 years of Catholic school, the last three under excellent Norbertine priests, and was a serious student. But I no longer follow Church dogma. By way of reference, as a previous poster mentioned, the new Catechism is available online. However I cannot recommend it. I’ve studied those sections of it that were pertinent to various CAF discussions, and find it to be vague, and often obfuscating. It strikes me as something written like a clever politician’s speech, that can be interpreted equally favorably by Democrats and Republicans (but not by T-Party folks!). Unlike the upfront style of the old Baltimore Catechism, I interpret the New Catechism as a disingenuous interpretation of beliefs by theologians who do not necessarily believe what they write.

I shall assume that you are on a philosophy forum because you are interested in a wide range of ideas, even those of which the Church itself might not approve. You might want to peruse this website page, beon-cpt.com/page6T.html for alternative notions of the nature of soul.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what you mean here, granny. God desires that none should perish (John 3:16) and yet allow us to perish if we wish. Anyway, yes, He certainly isn’t responsible for our choosing to oppose His will.

What I mean is that it is very important to completely understand Adam and his original relationship with his Creator. But that kind of depth is nearly impossible for uncharitable reasons.

 

[fhansen]

What I mean is that it is very important to completely understand Adam and his original relationship with his Creator. But that kind of depth is nearly impossible for uncharitable reasons.

For uncharitable reasons? I guess that’s honesty speaking? Why not try charity instead? Spread the wealth! Openess is the Christian way you know.

 

[grannymh]

For uncharitable reasons? I guess that’s honesty speaking? Why not try charity instead? Spread the wealth! Openess is the Christian way you know.

I’ll bite–since I often defend the real existence of Adam–what Adam and/or Original Sin openness are you interested in? I will be happy to respond charitably.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Then let’s try to “re-boost” your faith. Conversion is an ongoing experience—for everyone. Every person of faith experiences difficulties; but as the saying goes, “a thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”

Your first problem is based on a presumption. For it is most definitely not a fact that “humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals.” It may be probable on the purely naturalistic, scientific grounds when viewing evolution in a purely mechanical and random process. The science may show that evolution does not usually work in this way; I’m no evolutionary biologist. But evolution need not be blind and without purpose. If God exists, then surely He in His providence could arrange for an original pair of humans.

And the proper Catholic understanding is that all humans descend from Adam; but this doesn’t mean that all humans descend from only Adam. As others have mentioned, there may have existed what we could call a material, biological polygenism whereby out of this group of pre-humans two were given souls by God. These two (“Adam” and “Eve”) would have resembled the others (the “pre-humans”) biologically. Now, all humans would descend from this original pair, and all humans would descend from others before Adam and Eve as well. For more on this, see the first link. As for the possibility of such a bottleneck of two, see the second link:

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p102.htm

There does need to be a literal Adam for there to be a single representative of the human race in order to commit the Original Sin. That is why the Church sees polygenism as not being apparently reconcilable with the doctrine. One does not, of course, have to believe that the Original Sin was the consumption of fruit—and the various details that Genesis provides. The Church is clear on this. So part of the confusion with your saying that it all “sounds like a cruel game” might have to do with interpreting this too literally. St. Augustine said the following: “For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself” (On Christian doctrine, I.37). I found this quote in the first article above. I think it speaks true of this case in particular, for I think we’re doing ourselves a disservice by interpreting the Genesis account in a way that wasn’t meant to be. The form of myth it has is meant to express the truth—not in a factual, historical way—and yet by doing so it expresses the reality more powerfully.

The Church is clear on this. The Catechism says that though Genesis speaks of real events (e.g., the Fall really did happen), it does so using figurative language. And so perhaps it’ll be easier for you to see what’s going on here when you interpret how the Church sees it. It is true: you are free to hold to a fundamentalist interpretation here. But in interpreting the first sin, the Church primarily sees an act of self in place of God in the Fall—an act of disobedience. Humans would not be humans unless they were given the ability to love God freely. As someone else has already pointed out, God made humans not robots. God wants us to love him, but to love him freely. This is why hell is a real possibility: because God respects our freedom so much as to ultimately let us reject Him, completely.

I think it is absurd when people bring in the “God caused sin” argument. Ultimately, sin lies within the will, and it is Adam and Eve who willed the sin. Now, whether the Original Sin involved a fruit or not, we do not for sure know. I do not think it did. But let’s do another example, and maybe it’ll make the solution more concrete. Say a man is married. One day, he sees a beautiful woman, and the woman has mutual feelings for him. That night, the two go out, and the man ultimately cheats on his wife. Now, this man obviously (objectively) committed a sin. Are we to say this was God’s fault? After all, God could have made sure that the man didn’t see the beautiful woman that day. After all, God could have made the woman ugly. After all, God allowed that woman to be conceived. And—after all—God made the Universe—all matter, space, and time. The sin involved matter, space, and time. God, therefore, is the cause of the sin. These types of arguments can be used for the Original Sin, too, and as you can see, they mean nothing.

Quick on Mary: the Church’s understanding is that it was fitting for her to be immaculately conceived; it wasn’t necessary.

 

[fhansen]

I’ll bite–since I often defend the real existence of Adam–what Adam and/or Original Sin openness are you interested in? I will be happy to respond charitably.

Well, I also defend the real existence of Adam. But I’d just like to know what kind of depth of understanding about Adam & his relationship with His Creator you have to reveal, to the extent you can. Maybe I missed something in previous posts?

 

[grannymh]

Then let’s try to “re-boost” your faith. Conversion is an ongoing experience—for everyone. Every person of faith experiences difficulties; but as the saying goes, “a thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”

Your first problem is based on a presumption. For it is most definitely not a fact that “humans came from multiple parents, not just two individuals.” It may be probable on the purely naturalistic, scientific grounds when viewing evolution in a purely mechanical and random process. The science may show that evolution does not usually work in this way; I’m no evolutionary biologist. But evolution need not be blind and without purpose. If God exists, then surely He in His providence could arrange for an original pair of humans.

And the proper Catholic understanding is that all humans descend from Adam; but this doesn’t mean that all humans descend from only Adam. As others have mentioned, there may have existed what we could call a material, biological polygenism whereby out of this group of pre-humans two were given souls by God. These two (“Adam” and “Eve”) would have resembled the others (the “pre-humans”) biologically. Now, all humans would descend from this original pair, and all humans would descend from others before Adam and Eve as well. For more on this, see the first link. As for the possibility of such a bottleneck of two, see the second link:

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p102.htm

I am the “Granny” who is quoted in the second link.
My apology. At this time, I cannot respond to your post in the proper manner.

In the meantime, we should consider that real humans could only descend from a real human origin because human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.

The current evolution theory is that humans are relatives of the apes not coming from the line of apes. This theory (cladistics) is the result of comparing fossil characteristics of pre-historic ape species to the various species of pre-humans. The theory is that both humans and chimps (our modern closest relative) resulted from the common ancestor divergence known as the homo/pan split. This split is based on anatomical material/physical aspects.

The fact that the spiritual principle of human nature cannot evolve or emerge from decomposing material/physical anatomies of any kind brings up questions of what exactly is the nature of “others” in the natural science line before Adam. An infinite regress of human nature is not feasible. In the domain of natural science, the issue of “others” is solved by terminology. Thus, fossils which share some characteristics with real humans, such as walking upright, are often referred to as human ancestors, i.e., human.

The Catholic Church views human nature as something more than bones and guts which work efficiently. It recognizes that because of human nature, the human person is called to share in God’s divine life through knowledge and love. Divine life is outside the domain of natural science. Thus, when it comes to understanding the fully-complete human person, “Divine Revelation trumps.”

 

[grannymh]

Well, I also defend the real existence of Adam. But I’d just like to know what kind of depth of understanding about Adam & his relationship with His Creator you have to reveal, to the extent you can. Maybe I missed something in previous posts?

Personally, I like to start with the unequal natures of God and Adam. This is why I hesitate with the concept of benefactor and recipient because on first glance it sounds as if both have the same nature. On another thread, a reference was made to a king and servant. Here it is obvious that a king and servant are not on the same social level even though both would be considered human.

From reading the first three chapters of Genesis, it is obvious that there is a Creator and a creature in a friendship relationship. (Garden is an appropriate description.) The nature of the Creator is that of a transcendent Pure Spirit without human restrictions. The pertinent questions are --What is the basis for this friendship? or What is absolutely necessary for Adam to do in order to maintain this friendship?

The answer is that Adam maintains his friendship only in free submission to God. He cannot be God or equal to God because that would result in two gods. And according to St. Thomas Aquinas, there can only be one God. This raises the question of what was behind Adam’s disobedience. The words of Satan describe Adam’s motivation as Adam allowed his trust in his Creator die in his heart.

While future personal sins are considered disobedience toward God, Adam’s disobedience was different because the whole human race is in Adam as one body of one man. (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1.) Thus, we need to look again at the reasoning behind Adam’s disobedience. What was so serious about it, that it shattered Adam’s relationship with God? What prompted Adam to abuse his freedom?

The answer is that Adam preferred himself and his desires (tempted by Satan) over and against God and most importantly against the requirements of his creature status.
Adam did know what scorning his Creator meant.

In Catholic teachings about Original Sin, the difference between the nature of Adam and the nature of his Creator necessitated that the reconciler needed to be both True God and True Man.

All of us are aware of the secular attacks against the divinity of Christ. One summary of these attacks is that Jesus Christ is a prophet among prophets, an extraordinary human among other humans. As a counter, we need to remind ourselves that Adam is an extraordinary human because he was the first human. Here we find the answer to that perennial question – why should we suffer because of Adam’s disobedience?

 

[fhansen]

Thank you for the reply granny. I wasn’t really clear on the last part, about how we find the answer to our suffering for Adam’s sin in connection with his extraordinariness. But either way I do think we miss something about the relationship between him and God-and this one is central to Catholic doctrine but easy to miss or dismiss nonetheless- and this is the sheer love of God for Adam, in spite of His infinite superiority. God made man for that purpose, to love and be loved, and Adam failed to recognize this or even care-love had little value to him at the time, apparently pride was more compelling and important then. And the Atonement is, for one thing, intended to break through man’s pride when the time is ripe and convince us of that love -of just what man forfeited and lost by spurning God-of just how trustworthy God is after all. And so the New Covenant is all about man coming to the free submission you spoke of, but not out of blindly following the Law under his own vain efforts but rather because he’s finally coming to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength, fulfilling the greatest commandment.

 

[shoe]

Nice try, but it completely ignores why the benefactor doesn’t want you to use the pool.

The critical part of the story is God’s comment in Gen 3:22 (NIV):

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

And funnily enough, this is exactly how the serpent pitched the fruit to Eve:

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Why did God lie about the fruit?

Why didn’t God want man to know good and evil?

Why didn’t God want man to be inmmortal?

He doesn’t come accross as a benefactor, does he?

When God created the universe, He declared that everything was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), which also would include the tree “of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). Adam and Eve’s sin, then, did not come from their eating fruit; rather, Adam and Eve’s sin came from their ignoring God’s love for them, disbelieving that God had their best interest at heart, and falling for all of Satan’s lies; for example, believing that they could be like God, that God’s Sovereignty could be questioned without side effects, and that God was unworthy of their trust.

The Bible indicates that everyone lives for ever, either in one place or the other: “And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting” (Matthew 25:46). I think the reason that God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of life after they had fallen for Satan’s lies was to prevent them and their descendants of having to live their lives in a sinful state of timelessness without the possibility of ever being reunited with God through Jesus.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for the reply granny. I wasn’t really clear on the last part, about how we find the answer to our suffering for Adam’s sin in connection with his extraordinariness. But either way I do think we miss something about the relationship between him and God-and this one is central to Catholic doctrine but easy to miss or dismiss nonetheless- and this is the sheer love of God for Adam, in spite of His infinite superiority. God made man for that purpose, to love and be loved, and Adam failed to recognize this or even care-love had little value to him at the time, apparently pride was more compelling and important then. And the Atonement is, for one thing, intended to break through man’s pride when the time is ripe and convince us of that love -of just what man forfeited and lost by spurning God-of just how trustworthy God is after all. And so the New Covenant is all about man coming to the free submission you spoke of, but not out of blindly following the Law under his own vain efforts but rather because he’s finally coming to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength, fulfilling the greatest commandment.

What you said about love is very important. Thank you.

Unless one is defending Adam and Eve against the concept that what is called a spiritual soul is actually an epiphenomenon, i.e., the emergence of soul-like qualities from the material anatomy, one usually does not talk about a deeper purpose for humankind which is found in CCC 355 - 358.

In my humble opinion, it is time for Catholics to move away from the cutesy children’s books and into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Personally, I learned Catholic doctrine before opening a Bible.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for the reply granny. I wasn’t really clear on the last part, about how we find the answer to our suffering for Adam’s sin in connection with his extraordinariness.

Adam’s extraordinariness is that the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. CCC 404.

A previous posted cited just about the same paragraphs that I now suggest – CCC 374 - 406. I also suggest reading the cross-references in the margins.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I am the “Granny” who is quoted in the second link.
My apology. At this time, I cannot respond to your post in the proper manner.

In the meantime, we should consider that real humans could only descend from a real human origin because human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.

The current evolution theory is that humans are relatives of the apes not coming from the line of apes. This theory (cladistics) is the result of comparing fossil characteristics of pre-historic ape species to the various species of pre-humans. The theory is that both humans and chimps (our modern closest relative) resulted from the common ancestor divergence known as the homo/pan split. This split is based on anatomical material/physical aspects.

The fact that the spiritual principle of human nature cannot evolve or emerge from decomposing material/physical anatomies of any kind brings up questions of what exactly is the nature of “others” in the natural science line before Adam. An infinite regress of human nature is not feasible. In the domain of natural science, the issue of “others” is solved by terminology. Thus, fossils which share some characteristics with real humans, such as walking upright, are often referred to as human ancestors, i.e., human.

The Catholic Church views human nature as something more than bones and guts which work efficiently. It recognizes that because of human nature, the human person is called to share in God’s divine life through knowledge and love. Divine life is outside the domain of natural science. Thus, when it comes to understanding the fully-complete human person, “Divine Revelation trumps.”

Wait, I’m sorry. Were you disagreeing with me, or were you just adding more? *Because I found myself agreeing with everything you said.

 

[grannymh]

Wait, I’m sorry. Were you disagreeing with me, or were you just adding more? *Because I found myself agreeing with everything you said.

For you. :flowers:
I was looking for common ground as a starting point. Discussions about the origin of human nature and subsequently Original Sin can be a mulligan stew with leftovers from the earlier theories of evolution mixed in with some unnecessary literalist thinking. Thus, it is good to have early agreements.

For me, Original Sin is pretty straight forward if one follows the logic of Catholic doctrines. But when it comes to finding the truth of science and the truth of Catholicism, there are a lot of twists and turns. For example, I am aware of some of the proposals to update Catholic theology. However, when I look at the fine print, I usually find some kind of a glitch regarding the Catholic doctrinal version of Original Sin.

There are not very many posters who remember the early days of Matthew Fox, the former Catholic theologian. He handled the problem of Original Sin by dismissing it. I never read his books, but the titles of some of his first tomes did make me laugh. He was just one of many modern authors who chose the symbolism route to downgrade the importance of Original Sin in human history. This symbolism route feeds nicely into polygenism so that the evolution model can update ancient doctrines. Did I mention twists and turns?

Seriously, those of us who recognize possible consequences of the polygenism or evolution model approach need to learn more about human origin from the natural science position. As a part-time writer/editor, I need to learn and then balance the learning with what I have learned about Catholicism. It is when science is conducted properly and Catholic teaching is properly understood that the truth can be discerned.

One of your statements – Humans would not be humans unless they were given the ability to love God freely. – I have discussed elsewhere. My point is that when we talk about human nature, we have to go straight to the purpose of man which is to share in God’s divine life through knowledge and life. Man needs a spiritual soul in order to accomplish his goal. However, the existence of a spiritual soul is where the evolving population model deviates from Catholic doctrine.

It is at the point where the spiritual soul comes into existence, that one sees the need for two, sole, real founders of the human species.

 

[kompaz]

The fact that the spiritual principle of human nature cannot evolve or emerge from decomposing material/physical anatomies of any kind

Unsubstantiated claim.

The observed phenomenon of self-organization in neural networks – both biological and artificial – hints that mind/soul may arise by itself once the underlying neural network (brain) is complex enough.

scholarpedia.org/article/Self-organization_of_brain_function