Original Sin

[fhansen]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

My opinion is that this has to do with the almost comical force of this territorial instinct. I chose both examples from the online environment precisely because people don’t know each other and anything is gratuitous, with no practical gains or losses. Here on CAF, there are people who say: “I know I’m on your turf here, but…” (= I can try to conquer territory by fighting alone) or “Most of us have told you X, so why don’t you cease to claim Y?” (= this is our territory, be like us or get out). In animals, positioning oneself against a group would be absurd, because being rejected and left alone = future death and fighting alone = quick death. So they have to find a pack that accepts them and, when needed, fights together with them against a rival pack. Of course, not all species need a pack: a male cat just fights with another male cat for territory. But for humans, the risk of losing their life is zero in a safe environment, so they continue to fight for their virtual territory, as if their survival depends upon it, even if they are alone and without allies.

When there is a risk of losing their life, people still fight for their virtual territory, because a cause that they deem worthy of such a sacrifice is always conceived as a shared cause. Any man that gives his life to defend his opinion is convinced or at least hopes that he is not alone and that his opinion is or will be someday shared by many others: they will eventually expand their territory, so his death isn’t useless. Animals can sacrifice themselves for their offspring or at least risk their lives, too, when the territory of their group is violated or threatened (“biological altruism”).

But my question is, why is morality, one’s righteous position or stance on one issue or another-or one’s righteousness in general, without regard even to a particular issue-the territory at all? Why is it so important for humans to be right? That’s not the kind of territory animals fight for. They desire and pursue some good or another without regard to their right to have it.

 

[vames]

The need to be right is just a particular expression of the territorial instinct.

Territory is the space of life and all living beings tend naturally to survive and grow. For a plant, the territory is the soil with enough water and the air with enough sunlight; take them away and the plant dies. For us, the territory that we need for survival and growth has an abstract dimension - see what happens with feral children or with people locked up in solitary confinement for a long time. Or even when people with no children and nothing to make them sure that somebody will remember them. Nations and ethnic groups preserve their cultural heritage for future generations. Believers question the sincerity of those who say they are fine knowing that there’s no afterlife. And so on.

That’s why people don’t just work to make a living and reproduce themselves to perpetuate the species. A philosopher said that man is a “symbolic being” (animal symbolicum) who needs to generate a symbolic universe into which he can project his thoughts, in which he can live. And since a territory with an abstract dimension has no fixed limits (like when we can consume only a limited amount of food in one serving), the sky is the limit for this symbolic universe, pun intended: what man essentially wants is to achieve immortality, omnipresence, omnipotence, unlimitedness, “to become like God” or “to be God”. The Olympic slogan “Citius, Altius, Fortius” is in our genes.

 

[fhansen]

The need to be right is just a particular expression of the territorial instinct.

Territory is the space of life and all living beings tend naturally to survive and grow. For a plant, the territory is the soil with enough water and the air with enough sunlight; take them away and the plant dies. For us, the territory that we need for survival and growth has an abstract dimension - see what happens with feral children or with people locked up in solitary confinement for a long time. Or even when people with no children and nothing to make them sure that somebody will remember them. Nations and ethnic groups preserve their cultural heritage for future generations. Believers question the sincerity of those who say they are fine knowing that there’s no afterlife. And so on.

That’s why people don’t just work to make a living and reproduce themselves to perpetuate the species. A philosopher said that man is a “symbolic being” (animal symbolicum) who needs to generate a symbolic universe into which he can project his thoughts, in which he can live. And since a territory with an abstract dimension has no fixed limits (like when we can consume only a limited amount of food in one serving), the sky is the limit for this symbolic universe, pun intended: what man essentially wants is to achieve immortality, omnipresence, omnipotence, unlimitedness, “to become like God” or “to be God”. The Olympic slogan “Citius, Altius, Fortius” is in our genes.

And yet that would seem to make pride or self-righteousness a virtue, or at least natural. What, then, of humility? The cross, for example, presents a striking contrast to our values of pride, strength, the need to survive, win, conquer. Why should the humble, meek, pure of heart, child-like see God unless the kinds of traits that oppose those virtues aren’t in some way objectively wrong and ultimately destructive?

 

[vames]

Humility and choosing the cross can expand the abstract territory = can satisfy our need to survive and grow even better than aggressivity and pride directed towards conquering earthly possessions or prolonging one’s earthly life. Jesus says: “Those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it” and “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God”. The Magnificat says: “He has put down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted the lowly”.

But this doesn’t mean we have to see things mechanically, like when we take a piece of paper and make two columns with Virtue (to be kept) vs. Vice (to be suppressed). Because it’s not a matter of good vs. bad, but of moderation vs. excess, and in real life things can be very nuanced. One who indulges in eating and drinking can be much more humble and holy than one who fasts and prays most of the time. A repressed natural impulse takes revenge when nobody expects - that’s how people can justify plundering other countries “for the sake of God”. Without “pride, strength, the need to survive, win, conquer”, probably we’d be still living in caves. Random example: Giordano Bruno with the legendary “Eppur si muove”. If you are quick to condemn, you will say he was prideful when he should have been humble and obedient. But his persistence and dignity deserve our admiration, because his efforts helped a good cause.

 

[simpleas]

Humility and choosing the cross can expand the abstract territory = can satisfy our need to survive and grow even better than aggressivity and pride directed towards conquering earthly possessions or prolonging one’s earthly life. Jesus says: “Those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it” and “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God”. The Magnificat says: “He has put down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted the lowly”.

But this doesn’t mean we have to see things mechanically, like when we take a piece of paper and make two columns with Virtue (to be kept) vs. Vice (to be suppressed). Because it’s not a matter of good vs. bad, but of moderation vs. excess, and in real life things can be very nuanced. One who indulges in eating and drinking can be much more humble and holy than one who fasts and prays most of the time. A repressed natural impulse takes revenge when nobody expects - that’s how people can justify plundering other countries “for the sake of God”. Without “pride, strength, the need to survive, win, conquer”, probably we’d be still living in caves. Random example: Giordano Bruno with the legendary “Eppur si muove”. If you are quick to condemn, you will say he was prideful when he should have been humble and obedient. But his persistence and dignity deserve our admiration, because his efforts helped a good cause.

As believers in eternal life after death I sometimes wonder why we want to live longer. Might sound like a strange thought, of course none of us want to be in pain or suffer pain due to illness if it can be avoided, but when we persist in treatment to prolong our life, is it a form of survival instinct to avoid death and be with our loved ones that little bit longer, or a under lying fear of death even though we are promised eternal life?

 

[vames]

Both. Fear of death isn’t necessarily linked to doubts or disbelief about afterlife. A poster said here: “I don’t fear death because of Purgatory or Hell, I fear it because of the hideous ending it will bring to my body and mind. No amount of grace will help me with that. Sin is not all the horror there is to death”. I agree with him.

And the survival instinct isn’t always rationalized as “I want to be with my loved ones” or “I don’t want to leave my works unfinished”. A relative once worked in a hospital where there were infants born with hydrocephalia, with no chance of survival at that time. And she was deeply impressed by the way the infants tended to turn their heads in her direction when she brought them the milk or formula or whatever food it was. It was unconscious and tragically useless - the pure survival instinct.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi, OneSheep. Sometimes it seems as if maybe you’re conflating forgiveness with the idea that nothing’s sinful to begin with. No forgiveness is necessary if nothing’s sinful. But in any case, all sin is forgivable, except, maybe, for the sin of saying that* not* all sins are forgivable , which really is a problem in human affairs, people often preferring to maintain their righteous stance -“playing God”- rather than to forgive. And that is one way pride and arrogance entices us, and one way they interfere with justice/order/harmony in the world, or the restoration of those things, BTW. Another way they interfere is by causing us to not accept forgiveness, which requires admitting to some sin.

The priest I often refer to said that the “unforgiveable sin” is the sin of refusing to forgive, because in doing so we will never know God’s forgiveness. We have to do it in order to experience it. God still forgives, but the human who does not forgive will never know such a God. My thinking is that it all gets straightened out in purgatory. The question is, do I forgive those who refuse to forgive me and others? If I am resentful towards such a mindset, then forgiveness is called for. BTW: sin happens, see below.

But to back up: appetites are good and natural, disordered appetites are not. Sexual appetites are good,

A gift from God.

rape is not.

A human choice, a sin, made possible by the sinner’s blindness to the value of his victim and the impact of the sin.

Authority is good,

Leadership is good. Society has a need for order.

tyranny is not.

Tyranny is a human choice, made possible by the sinner’s blindness to the value of his subjects and the impact of his sin.

Self-love is good,

Self-love is love, and love is a gift from God.

pride is not

Pride is not a choice, as noted on the other examples. All of us have the desire to be in control, dominate, and win. To me, as the in the rest of the animal kingdom, these drives are a gift from God. Sins that we say happen because of “pride” were addressed in my #588, which I see that you responded to, and I hope to get to it tomorrow.

For now, though, I am wondering if you found as enlightening as I did Vames’ explanation of the drive behind some of the sin as territoriality. It was like wow, of course we defend the territory of our belief system, because our beliefs help define our affiliations. We are defending the in-group!

All evil is an abuse of some good.
Abuse is possible only because humans are in control of their morality to begin with; we have control over what/who will control us, so to speak. We have the ability to choose good or evil, animals do not have such control. We may or may not have full awareness of the “evilness” of an act, which means we may have more or less culpability for the act, but the act, itself, is out of sorts with the will of God-it’s “sin”, IOW, and He wants us to become aware of that so it may be addressed, so that we may be opened to and desirous of forgiveness and the healing it offers us. The “good thief” on the cross accepted the offer, the other thief scoffed at it.

Yes. And my thinking is that the abuse is always because of blindness, and that is where the awareness is so important.

I remember watching the movie, The Passion. I was a little disappointed with the scene involving the other thief. All of that with the crows (ravens?) and so forth, that is how our human conscience deals with people’s sins. To me, God forgives.

 

[OneSheep]

OK, so I reread 588. And it seemed that the point in the example I gave was overlooked. Regardless of whether or not I reduce another human, who disagrees with me, to an object, there is, in us, a more basic need or desire to be right, a desire that is protective of the ego, that desires to win an argument without regard to the truth, for the sake of *appearing *right if nothing else,. This is the mentality that I was trying to explore by my example-and that seems so out of place with the rest of nature. It has to do with the way in which, or the reason why, we’re detached from our environment, our universe-and each other-to begin with.

So, the question is, why do people desire to win an argument, even without regard to the truth?

I remember arguing with my Dad one time, and after somewhat heated`argument with him, I finally realized what he was arguing and I said, “Do you really believe that?!”
He straightened up, exhaled, paused, and said “no, but this is the argument against what you are saying”. I love my Dad.

We love to win, just for the sake of winning I suppose. Winning causes release of all kinds of happy neurotransmitters in our bodies.

Is it possible that you experienced something really hurtful surrounding this issue in your past, either you have done something that you still hold against yourself, or you had an encounter, or witnessed an encounter, that impacted you greatly? This is how such specific peeves end up influencing (slanting?) my conscience.

I like vames’ angle too. We are defending a territory to some degree.

What I am saying is that the goodness or badness of “pride” is not really an intellectual issue, it is a spiritual issue. Our experiences lead to emotional responses, and those emotional responses influence our healthy consciences.

 

[simpleas]

Both. Fear of death isn’t necessarily linked to doubts or disbelief about afterlife. A poster said here: “I don’t fear death because of Purgatory or Hell, I fear it because of the hideous ending it will bring to my body and mind. No amount of grace will help me with that. Sin is not all the horror there is to death”. I agree with him.

And the survival instinct isn’t always rationalized as “I want to be with my loved ones” or “I don’t want to leave my works unfinished”. A relative once worked in a hospital where there were infants born with hydrocephalia, with no chance of survival at that time. And she was deeply impressed by the way the infants tended to turn their heads in her direction when she brought them the milk or formula or whatever food it was. It was unconscious and tragically useless - the pure survival instinct.

I’m thinking more of people of faith. When we are told we have a disease, we could decided whether to take drugs and prolong our life for a few years, or allow nature to take its course. Everyone I’ve known in this situation has gone with option one. I don’t know anyone who would think, well thats my call to go now, onto the next life and meet my maker! We love our lifes too much to think of them as no more than decaying. But we should be thinking more spiritually in a sense, our souls leaving our bodies to meet our maker, then being reunited with our resurrected bodies.

 

[fhansen]

So, the question is, why do people desire to win an argument, even without regard to the truth?

I remember arguing with my Dad one time, and after somewhat heated`argument with him, I finally realized what he was arguing and I said, “Do you really believe that?!”
He straightened up, exhaled, paused, and said “no, but this is the argument against what you are saying”. I love my Dad.

We love to win, just for the sake of winning I suppose. Winning causes release of all kinds of happy neurotransmitters in our bodies.

Is it possible that you experienced something really hurtful surrounding this issue in your past, either you have done something that you still hold against yourself, or you had an encounter, or witnessed an encounter, that impacted you greatly? This is how such specific peeves end up influencing (slanting?) my conscience.

I like vames’ angle too. We are defending a territory to some degree.

What I am saying is that the goodness or badness of “pride” is not really an intellectual issue, it is a spiritual issue. Our experiences lead to emotional responses, and those emotional responses influence our healthy consciences.

Everyone is hurt by human pride/self-righteousness IMO. In any case the material for all human sin exists within God’s good creation: rational, sentient beings combined with free will, combined with natural wants, needs, appetites, etc, combined with physical bodies capable of acting upon those desires, provide the ingredients for all kinds of harmful or destructive behavior-or not.

We can speculate, perhaps reducing the desire for a human to be right to “territoriality”-as a need to dominate for survival-but I’m not sure that that model fits so well. Or we might opine that it can cause one to fit with the “in group”, but pride self/righteousness often produces loners in my observation. In any case Jesus opposed it, opting to be the ultimate loser as a result, rejecting and being rejected by the “in group”, promoting sheer humility, turning the other cheek all the way to the tomb instead.

What I see in human pride/ego is an imposter, an outsider that imposes its will where it doesn’t belong, insinuating its way into a role it doesn’t deserve, the role of God for all practical purposes. We take it for granted, tho; we’re born with less humility than is proper-and indicated by our creaturely status-because we’re born without intimate knowledge of/contact with our creator. We cannot understand sin/evil without relating it to man’s need for-and lack of communion with-God IMO. And pride by its nature opposes that relationship, because it tends to reject/resist God’s superiority and all that implies.

 

[fhansen]

I thought these, from the Summa, would be interesting-and pertinent to the discussion:

**Whether self-love is the source of every sin?

I answer that, As stated above (Question 75, Article 1), the proper and direct cause of sin is to be considered on the part of the adherence to a mutable good; in which respect every sinful act proceeds from inordinate desire for some temporal good. Now the fact that anyone desires a temporal good inordinately, is due to the fact that he loves himself inordinately; for to wish anyone some good is to love him. Therefore it is evident that inordinate love of self is the cause of every sin.

Whether pride is a sin?

Reply to Objection 2. Reason has the direction of those things for which man has a natural appetite; so that if the appetite wander from the rule of reason, whether by excess or by default, it will be sinful, as is the case with the appetite for food which man desires naturally. Now pride is the appetite for excellence in excess of right reason. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 13) that pride is the “desire for inordinate exaltation”: and hence it is that, as he asserts (De Civ. Dei xiv, 13; xix, 12), “pride imitates God inordinately: for it hath equality of fellowship under Him, and wishes to usurp His dominion over our fellow-creatures.”
**

 

[fhansen]

Adam felt shame at being human-and that was the birth of pride. Pride is the devaluation of humanity by thinking we need to be more, by thinking that the only way we can truly have any worth at all is to be God, to fail to understand that our worth comes from God and is only realized by our being in union with Him, rather than by stealing His crown from Him. By trying to be more, Adam fell to less: scorning and dismissing what he already had, what he already was. His shame of self diminished, rather than elevated, human dignity. His shame of self scorned the Creator of his self, and resulted in a division within himself simultaneous with creating a division with God. Adam’s act of disobedience was an act of placing himself above God, because it was an act of dismissing God’s opinion, His authority, in favor of his own, and therefore it was the birth/act of pride, and therefore the birth/act of shame at being the creature rather than the Creator. Adam’s shame in the garden where God found him hiding was the indicator that this act had taken place.

 

[vames]

I’m thinking more of people of faith. When we are told we have a disease, we could decided whether to take drugs and prolong our life for a few years, or allow nature to take its course. Everyone I’ve known in this situation has gone with option one. I don’t know anyone who would think, well thats my call to go now, onto the next life and meet my maker! We love our lifes too much to think of them as no more than decaying. But we should be thinking more spiritually in a sense, our souls leaving our bodies to meet our maker, then being reunited with our resurrected bodies.

Well, for people of faith it’s a matter of discernment - when a medical procedure that prolongs life can be considered “burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome” (CCC) and therefore it’s legitimate to discontinue it - and when a medical procedure cannot be discontinued without the risk of violating the Fifth Commandment. These discussions can be endless: how long should a patient in a coma be left on a life support machine? If one refuses such machines, does he commit suicide? etc. As for the decision to take drugs and prolong our life for a few years, people aren’t really as free (or selfish) as they may seem: a parent who has to raise children will choose to prolong his life for their sake, while an old person who is alone or rejected by his family will be more open to the idea of allowing nature to take its course. A character from a novel (Wuthering Heights?) said: “Dad, I want to outlive you, because I love you and don’t want you to suffer because of my death; I’d rather suffer myself from losing you”. The character was sincere.

 

[simpleas]

Adam felt shame at being human-and that was the birth of pride. Pride is the devaluation of humanity by thinking we need to be more, by thinking that the only way we can truly have any worth at all is to be God, to fail to understand that our worth comes from God and is only realized by our being in union with Him, rather than by stealing His crown from Him. By trying to be more, Adam fell to less: scorning and dismissing what he already had, what he already was. His shame of self diminished, rather than elevated, human dignity. His shame of self scorned the Creator of his self, and resulted in a division within himself simultaneous with creating a division with God. Adam’s act of disobedience was an act of placing himself above God, because it was an act of dismissing God’s opinion, His authority, in favor of his own, and therefore it was the birth/act of pride, and therefore the birth/act of shame at being the creature rather than the Creator. Adam’s shame in the garden where God found him hiding was the indicator that this act had taken place.

How can we be sure Adam felt shame at being human? If Adam was the only male and Eve the only female why would they want to be like God or full of pride. If on the other hand there were other humans around (still adam and eve would be our first parents) I could imagine Adam being the head and so through experience of life with others he would have been more tempted to think he needed more than he was.
With just two humans by themselves, not having any others to interact with and still think that they wanted more doesn’t reason with my mind.

 

[OneSheep]

Everyone is hurt by human pride/self-righteousness IMO.

No doubt, we are all hurt by someone else’s actions motivated by the pride appetite filtered through our ignorance and blindness. But no one, fhansen is hurt by an appetite, right? It is the choices people make that hurt others and the self. Inordinate love of myself (I translate “inordinate” as thinking I am better or more worthy than others, a matter of ignorance) is not going to cause pain to anyone else, but my subsequent chosen behaviors may indeed be hurtful.

In any case the material for all human sin exists within God’s good creation: rational, sentient beings combined with free will, combined with natural wants, needs, appetites, etc, combined with physical bodies capable of acting upon those desires, provide the ingredients for all kinds of harmful or destructive behavior-or not.

… and blindness and ignorance are necessary ingredients to sin too…

We can speculate, perhaps reducing the desire for a human to be right to “territoriality”-as a need to dominate for survival-but I’m not sure that that model fits so well. Or we might opine that it can cause one to fit with the “in group”, but pride self/righteousness often produces loners in my observation.

As is also the case in baboon society. Overly-aggressive males are shunned.

In any case Jesus opposed it, opting to be the ultimate loser as a result, rejecting and being rejected by the “in group”, promoting sheer humility, turning the other cheek all the way to the tomb instead.

I don’t think Jesus ever shunned self-love. He said to love our neighbor as ourselves, and if we have no self love, this does not bode well for my neighbor. Jesus did, however, shun (repent) from the parts of human nature that can enslave us, and invites us to do the same. Up to His death, Jesus had inspired repentance from material wealth, judgment of others, lust, all of the human trappings. However, He had popularity, which is also a human trapping, another appetite which to be enslaved. If Jesus would have answered to His accusers before the crucifixion, He may have held onto His popularity, but becoming unpopular, I think, was one of the more important parts of the end of His earthly ministry.

What I see in human pride/ego is an imposter, an outsider that imposes its will where it doesn’t belong, insinuating its way into a role it doesn’t deserve, the role of God for all practical purposes. We take it for granted, tho; we’re born with less humility than is proper-and indicated by our creaturely status-because we’re born without intimate knowledge of/contact with our creator. We cannot understand sin/evil without relating it to man’s need for-and lack of communion with-God IMO. And pride by its nature opposes that relationship, because it tends to reject/resist God’s superiority and all that implies.

I would agree that pride, coupled with ignorance and/or blindness, opposes that relationship. But is our pride a separate will? Is our “pride”, which can be dissected into, among other things, appetites for self-esteem, territory, dominance (including popularity), freedom and control, anything other than a gift from God? It seems to me that such appetites that benefit our species as well as so many other species has been given to us for our own benefit.

If not, something other than God was part of our creation, which brings us back to dualism.

I am saying that I see that our pride is a gift from God, this is the result of my own internal reconciliation. My “pride” (all-inclusive) is not my enemy. My ignorance and/or blindness, which are necessary ingredients in hurting self and others, could be considered my enemy, but such ignorance and blindness disappear in the light, these do not really exist, they are a “lack”. Ignorance and blindness are issues that we empowered, by faith and empathy, to overcome.

Is your pride your enemy?

 

[simpleas]

Well, for people of faith it’s a matter of discernment - when a medical procedure that prolongs life can be considered “burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome” (CCC) and therefore it’s legitimate to discontinue it - and when a medical procedure cannot be discontinued without the risk of violating the Fifth Commandment. These discussions can be endless: how long should a patient in a coma be left on a life support machine? If one refuses such machines, does he commit suicide? etc. As for the decision to take drugs and prolong our life for a few years, people aren’t really as free (or selfish) as they may seem: a parent who has to raise children will choose to prolong his life for their sake, while an old person who is alone or rejected by his family will be more open to the idea of allowing nature to take its course. A character from a novel (Wuthering Heights?) said: “Dad, I want to outlive you, because I love you and don’t want you to suffer because of my death; I’d rather suffer myself from losing you”. The character was sincere.

Yeah, not sure about the life support, if the brain is unable naturally to keep the body alive then it wouldn’t be like committing suicide I don’t think…but I can’t be sure.
I agree with different situations in life, people with or without children/family.
I totally respect life and the life of others, just with so much scientific development we have more chance to live longer, which is natural, maybe not seeing whats on the other side is a fear that dwells in us…
I know, as perhaps you and many people also may know who have lost children before they have passed, my aunt and uncle for one has lost two adult children. Can not imagine their pain.

 

[fhansen]

How can we be sure Adam felt shame at being human? If Adam was the only male and Eve the only female why would they want to be like God or full of pride. If on the other hand there were other humans around (still adam and eve would be our first parents) I could imagine Adam being the head and so through experience of life with others he would have been more tempted to think he needed more than he was.
With just two humans by themselves, not having any others to interact with and still think that they wanted more doesn’t reason with my mind.

Because God was also with them in the garden-and God is quite desirous-godhood is the greatest good one could desire for themselves. Have you ever been intimidated by another person who has a trait or two that you lack? Physical stature, good looks, education, humor, intelligence, accomplishments, etc. We can become jealous quite easily enough-we can wish the person to leave-or wish to leave ourselves, not accepting of the person’s superiority in this area, no longer accepting of ourselves due to “failing” in this area.

Anyway, IMO there’s a very subtle event that occurs in us in regard to sin: we don’t sin merely because something-the object of our desire- looks, seems, or feels good, rather we want that good, for* us*, first of all, because we feel it will make us, personally, better, either by removing some pain associated with a perceived evil, or by appropriating some perceived good. Consider Aquinas’ words:

**“Therefore it is evident that inordinate love of self is the cause of every sin.”

“Reply to Objection 2. Concupiscence, whereby a man desires good for himself, is reduced to self-love as to its cause, as stated.”

“Reply to Objection 3. Man is said to love both the good he desires for himself, and himself to whom he desires it. Love, in so far as it is directed to the object of desire (e.g. a man is said to love wine or money) admits, as its cause, fear which pertains to avoidance of evil: for every sin arises either from inordinate desire for some good, or from inordinate avoidance of some evil. But each of these is reduced to self-love, since it is through loving himself that man either desires good things, or avoids evil things.”
**

 

[fhansen]

No doubt, we are all hurt by someone else’s actions motivated by the pride appetite filtered through our ignorance and blindness. But no one, fhansen is hurt by an appetite, right? It is the choices people make that hurt others and the self. Inordinate love of myself (I translate “inordinate” as thinking I am better or more worthy than others, a matter of ignorance) is not going to cause pain to anyone else, but my subsequent chosen behaviors may indeed be hurtful.

I’m not sure. Did Adam start out in ignorance, become ignorant, or did he prefer ignorance to the truth? Choices are also involved in our ignorance the way I see it-all my life I’ve dealt with people preferring the truth to be a certain way, according to their likes, and proceeding accordingly, blissfully ignorant. In any case there’s an onus upon us to “become right”, to stop hurting each other; “Universal Justice” in some way demands it-and has every right to, even as He’s made it known that He’s completely on our side and willing to help us achieve it.

I don’t think Jesus ever shunned self-love.

Of course not-there’s a categorical difference between pride (inordinate self-love) and self-love. The latter is consonant with humility while the former is not.

I would agree that pride, coupled with ignorance and/or blindness, opposes that relationship. But is our pride a separate will? Is our “pride”, which can be dissected into, among other things, appetites for self-esteem, territory, dominance (including popularity), freedom and control, anything other than a gift from God? It seems to me that such appetites that benefit our species as well as so many other species has been given to us for our own benefit.

If not, something other than God was part of our creation, which brings us back to dualism.

I am saying that I see that our pride is a gift from God, this is the result of my own internal reconciliation. My “pride” (all-inclusive) is not my enemy. My ignorance and/or blindness, which are necessary ingredients in hurting self and others, could be considered my enemy, but such ignorance and blindness disappear in the light, these do not really exist, they are a “lack”. Ignorance and blindness are issues that we empowered, by faith and empathy, to overcome.

Is your pride your enemy?

Yes, it’s driven me to various errors, some quite self-destructive. IOW I can be my own worst enemy. Inordinate use of God’s gifts is the problem. The wisdom to humble ourselves, most especially before the reality and person of God, is the answer. To the extent that we do that the world turns from sin.

 

[fhansen]

It sounds paradoxical but in one sense inordinate self-love (pride) is actually self-hate. It’s hatred of the self God created us to be in favor of our own “improved” self. The distinction can appear subtle but it’s the difference between truth and falsehood, between hypocrisy, whether on a minuscule level or a huge one, and the simple truth of who we are.

 

[simpleas]

Because God was also with them in the garden-and God is quite desirous-godhood is the greatest good one could desire for themselves. Have you ever been intimidated by another person who has a trait or two that you lack? Physical stature, good looks, education, humor, intelligence, accomplishments, etc. We can become jealous quite easily enough-we can wish the person to leave-or wish to leave ourselves, not accepting of the person’s superiority in this area, no longer accepting of ourselves due to “failing” in this area.

Anyway, IMO there’s a very subtle event that occurs in us in regard to sin: we don’t sin merely because something-the object of our desire- looks, seems, or feels good, rather we want that good, for* us*, first of all, because we feel it will make us, personally, better, either by removing some pain associated with a perceived evil, or by appropriating some perceived good. Consider Aquinas’ words:

**“Therefore it is evident that inordinate love of self is the cause of every sin.”

“Reply to Objection 2. Concupiscence, whereby a man desires good for himself, is reduced to self-love as to its cause, as stated.”

“Reply to Objection 3. Man is said to love both the good he desires for himself, and himself to whom he desires it. Love, in so far as it is directed to the object of desire (e.g. a man is said to love wine or money) admits, as its cause, fear which pertains to avoidance of evil: for every sin arises either from inordinate desire for some good, or from inordinate avoidance of some evil. But each of these is reduced to self-love, since it is through loving himself that man either desires good things, or avoids evil things.”
**

It’s interesting to think about all of this. How we as humans now believe how we should relate to God, first by loving him, praying and worshipping him and hoping to see him as he really is after our bodily death.
Thinking of Adam and Eve, they were in friendship with the creator, yet thought they could become the creator. I see the creator as a spirit, in Eden, somehow interacting with his two children. To think they could be God, in a good way isn’t wrong, yet they thought they could do it without God, and thats were the mistake happened.
We have a chance to learn from experience why or how our actions maybe wrong, they didn’t seem to have that chance…or maybe they did and refused to repent to God.
(ok i’m trying to rewrite the bible…lol)

Yes I’ve felt intimidated by people at times in my life, and felt less than I could be. You refuse to acknowledge who you are as a person, who is just as worthy as anyone else to live life in this world. If you don’t love yourself (in a good way) then you can’t project love onto others.