S
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
Could be, as long as it’s not the same as the garden of Eden again.
Can not say, I have yet to ponder on more ideas of who God is.
Thanks.
S
simpleas
Guest
But isn’t the soul part of the human nature? Therefore Adam in some way gives part of his soul (soul and body as one) to his offspring.
If we do not separate the soul and body then both are reproduced even if they are different (not clones for example)
Separate them, God gives soul…Adam/Eve reproduce body, then soul is not corrupted…
O
o_mlly
Guest
The principle of sufficient reason would include as transferable those properties that exist as potentials not yet actualized in the cause and, therefore, may be present in the effect. For instance, unique to humans is an intellectual life characterized by reason, imagination and, most importantly, free will. These unvarying properties may exist as only potentialities at various stages of actualization (as in the unborn, catatonic, or demented) and, even if only pure potentialities, still constitute a human being at all times.
Not being a historian but only an observer of human history, it appears to me that the level of violence has increased in our time. On a global scale abortions numbers, and the frequency of genocide to the local scale of the record murder rates in Chicago suggest a dramatic coarsening of societies respect for human life.
If the greatest love is to give one’s life for another then sustaining or increasing (thriving) one’s own life at the cost of another is a corruption commonly known as being self-centered as opposed to other-oriented.
- Concupiscence (a propensity to excessive indulgence in one’s bodily appetites)
- Irascibility (an aversion to arduous tasks),
- A dulling of the intellect and reason
- An increased capacity to demonic domination
- Suffering and death
The weakening or corruption of human nature is not rare but universal (save those conceived w/o original sin). God does not corrupt, only man. God heals and integrates man through grace with which man must freely cooperate to effect.
In order that an omnipotent God may heal the corruption and thereby elevate man from a contented life in the garden to participate in the triune Godhead.
No. Only good proceeds from Goodness. The divine image is in man’s soul specifically in the faculties of intellect, reason and free will. Man, in God’s image, tempted by the evil one, abused his free will and disfigured his divine image through his original sin
Unfortunately, human sin interferes with the progress of God’s plan. We see this in the garden, the flood, and the tower. Through sinfulness, a lack of trust in God’s loving promise, man utterly fails to respond. Yet God’s love is stronger than humankind’s sinfulness, and He persists until He finds in Noah “a righteous man, blameless in his time; [who] walked with God” (Genesis 6:9). God elects Noah as His instrument to continue His love affair with a stiff-necked humanity.
It is not the humans of Genesis that are so different, but the God of Genesis. Election is God’s free action but, respecting His gift of freedom to humanity, God requires our free and positive response. This is the basis of covenant.
If what I write, you find true then let us both praise the source of all truth and thank Him. If what I write, you find puzzling or unsettling then that would just be me so please pray for me.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Human beings are not souls with bodies or bodies with souls. We are an integral combination of soul and body – an ensouled body.
It is true that the soul animates the body. But even a perfect soul cannot fully animate a maimed body. Adam’s sin corrupted his passions, reason and intellect – all faculties whose full and good actuation require the wholeness of some body member.
God’s grace provides the sure cure for those maimed members of the body.
S
simpleas
Guest
If I’m reading this correctly it sounds like you are saying parts of the body are maimed, but wouldn’t say that the soul is maimed?
It’s weird but I keep reading that the body and soul are not two things but are one, yet one animates the other (soul animates body).
If the soul is perfect then the body would be too, like A&E in the beginning, having their soul animate the body, so that passions were under control.
I think a poster here said the soul was our intellect, which to me has to be unique to the individual, therefore Adam’s soul/intellect could not be passed onto another. Hence why I question how human nature is passed on.
I’ll just do this for a while this weekend :banghead:
G
goout
Guest
Adam and Eve’s fall are not passed on due to any verifiable scientific proof. We share in the fall because we are a community.
The good of one is the good of all…etc
God made us for communion with each other, in and through him.
We can’t just claim the good in each other and decline the rest.
O
o_mlly
Guest
At death, the soul leaves the body and no longer animates. We are now like the angels and devils outside time. Whatever the condition of our souls at the time of death is now our condition in eternity for without the body the soul cannot intellect or will a change in our disposition. The soul and body will remain separated until the general resurrection and final judgment.
The potentials of the soul made in God’s image are limited by the partially corrupted human nature of the body – its passions, dulled reason and inclination to evil. Although the soul may have the potential, the body is weak and in need of God’s grace to restore His friendship.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello o milly,
Though Pinker’s research was extensive, you may have a point in terms of excluding abortion; it leaves a question mark. However, if one were to examine the question “within the parameters of acknowledged human life”, we can find that people are becoming increasingly aware of value of people who look and behave differently than they do. Of course, ignorance about the value of the unborn is very difficult to overcome because of many factors, but given the trends concerning violence in general, we can be optimistic that this ignorance can also be overcome.
Death being a corruption is making the assumption that we were once immortal. We have no scientific evidence of this. Doctrinally, immortality was a “missed opportunity”, but it was never part of our nature.
It serves us to believe that our own natural death of the physical body is our fault, not God’s, but there is no evidence of corruption.
That said, every individual human can view their own development from child to adult as a “corruption”. We tend to see the additions of appetites for sex, territory, power, etc. as impurities. We did not willingly add these drives to our psychological makeup, they were uninvited, so we do naturally (though subconsciously, I think) resent these impositions. It is very easy and natural to conclude that humans become “corrupted”; it is a common phenomenology.
You see, there is a way of looking at the big picture in which we can see that both body and soul come non-corrupted, as one nondualism directly from our loving Creator.
(continued)
npr.org/2016/07/16/486311030/despite-the-headlines-steven-pinker-says-the-world-is-becoming-less-violent
Though Pinker’s research was extensive, you may have a point in terms of excluding abortion; it leaves a question mark. However, if one were to examine the question “within the parameters of acknowledged human life”, we can find that people are becoming increasingly aware of value of people who look and behave differently than they do. Of course, ignorance about the value of the unborn is very difficult to overcome because of many factors, but given the trends concerning violence in general, we can be optimistic that this ignorance can also be overcome.
Since people depend on communities, the ability to thrive depends on the ability to empathize and do what is best for the community. This involves the capacity to sacrifice.
The excessiveness is modulated by conflict with freedom. We have the desire to be free, and we suffer when we are enslaved by the excesses. We need the appetites; they in themselves are not corruptions. A nature modulated by checks and balances is not a corruption.
Again, we can first refer to the human desire for freedom. By nature, we are prone to be compelled to gather resources, seek mates, increase territory, increase status, correct injustice, and other innate compulsions. While these are all good, together they can inhibit freedom; the desire for freedom draws us to a happier existence. Other benefits of aversion include saving energy, but we cannot ignore the fact that humans can also be slaves to fear, resentment, mental illness, and other maladies that can demotivate and lead to aversion. However, none of these can be described as a corruption of our nature in general.
You must spend too much time watching American politicians.
Is there evidence of “demonic domination” ever occurring? Please provide.
Capacity to suffer is part of the human’s behavioral checks and balances. The fact that we live in a sometimes difficult world is not evidence of corruption of our nature. Circumstances happen.
Death being a corruption is making the assumption that we were once immortal. We have no scientific evidence of this. Doctrinally, immortality was a “missed opportunity”, but it was never part of our nature.
It serves us to believe that our own natural death of the physical body is our fault, not God’s, but there is no evidence of corruption.
That said, every individual human can view their own development from child to adult as a “corruption”. We tend to see the additions of appetites for sex, territory, power, etc. as impurities. We did not willingly add these drives to our psychological makeup, they were uninvited, so we do naturally (though subconsciously, I think) resent these impositions. It is very easy and natural to conclude that humans become “corrupted”; it is a common phenomenology.
I think you are saying that God gives man the ability to inadvertently self-corrupt so that He can heal the corruption. Did I read that correctly?
Going back to Simpleas’ question, though, God made man with the capacity to inadvertently choose against Him, and He already knew that man would make this very choice. It can be shown that Adam and Eve chose what they thought was good. So, we come down to defiance. God created us with the capacity to question authority, to test the benevolence of our leadership. A leadership that is mostly “selfish” does not add to a communities ability to thrive, especially in the long run. A benevolent God has given us the capacity to question the motives of all authority regardless of how well we seem to be treated.
You see, there is a way of looking at the big picture in which we can see that both body and soul come non-corrupted, as one nondualism directly from our loving Creator.
(continued)
O
OneSheep
Guest
I see that you believe in the literal story of Noah’s ark.
Yes, one aspect of the Genesis story is to give the people strong impetus to obey authority, which is meant to help resolve the problem of challenges to authority.
God is infinitely benevolent. His love and mercy are unconditional. When “requirement” involves God ever saying “no” to us because of some action we have taken or choice we have made, it compromises His benevolence. When “requirement” is applied to simple consequence, such as reconciliation involving our own choice, not just that of our always-waiting God, then it does not sacrifice His benevolence.
Hah! That would be too much emphasis my own wisdom concerning what I find puzzling or unsettling. Nothing you have written above is either, though. It is a matter of sorting out our images of God from our own limited perspectives.
As always, I appreciate your counterpoints.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Pinker’s methods and conclusions are challenged as are almost all social science studies being non-empirical. theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
I believe you have the obligations backwards. Yes, we are social by nature and designed to live in community. This is the principle of solidarity. However, the principle of subsidiarity instructs that the community exists for the benefit of the individual not vice-versa. To wit:
58. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need.
CARITAS IN VERITATE
BENEDICT XVI
The passions may most certainly be evil if they lead us to do evil.
CCC#1768 Strong feelings are not decisive for the morality or the holiness of persons; they are simply the inexhaustible reservoir of images and affections in which the moral life is expressed. Passions are morally good when they contribute to a good action, evil in the opposite case.
Only an evil will produces a disordered act. God does not inhibit moral freedom - we do because we are corrupted. We can always with the grace of God will the real good. Adam, open but not inclined to sin, abused his free will by willing evil: to disobey God. One may very well hold that before Christ, the fallen children of Adam who were now inclined to sin, were more likely to sin than Adam who in original holiness was open but not inclined to sin. In the first moment, Adam must have rejected the original holiness that moved him to do only good. In the second moment, Adam chose to do evil.
The sources of evil are the world, the flesh and the devil. As we cannot know the soul of another it is impossible to say which was the primary source of their evil act. However, demonic domination is not limited to possession but also obsession. Your devil is in constant battle with your guardian angel to influence your moral choices. If one habitually chooses evil then one is probably demonically obsessed.
For Catholics, the introduction of suffering and human death into the world is positive proof of the partial corruption of human nature.
We have no scientific proof that man was not once immortal.
Watch a dead body. Death immediately leads to physical corruption.
We cannot become what we lack as potentials. If we become addicted to our disordered appetites for the world and the flesh then we had in our corrupted nature the potential to do so.
God gives man free will in order that man might freely choose to love and serve God. God so loves mankind that God willing cleans up our messes even to the point of sacrificing His only Son.
He has also given us the grace to accept His authority and obey in humility. Religion is an aspect of virtue of justice; it is what we owe God who has given us everything.
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, not necessarily. But I do believe in the substance of the story. Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.
For some who do not yet know God, fear of God may often precedes the love of God. Others who know God do not fear Him for knowing Him is loving Him. Obedience born out of fear is the attitude of the slave. Obedience born out of love is the attitude of the children of God.
Rather it is the sinner who says “no” to God. God’s benevolence sustains His love for us even when we reject Him.
S
simpleas
Guest
So it’s a form of dualism then? The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. They are in a fight with each other even though they are meant to be one.
God can’t create evil, so when we say evil is, the world, flesh and the devil, we must be saying God can create evil?
I wonder about the saying, ‘the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’ the flesh has been known to be the problem, yet it is the spirit that guides the flesh, so I’m thinking more about the spirit as the animator, not the other way round.
S
simpleas
Guest
That wasn’t what I was saying.
I’m thinking when a new person is created and born, that person may share some similarities with the parents but they don’t have the exact same intellect/soul of the parents.
People can be very good or very bad, some inbetween. That is where our individuality comes in, even when we are in a community.
O
o_mlly
Guest
St. Paul put it well.
“For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.” (Rom 7:19)
The world, flesh and devil are the sources of evil as the three tempt us to be vicious. But only the devil is evil per se and of his own free will.
The passions present an evil image to the intellect (temptation), the intellect reflects and dismisses or passes the image to the will. If not dismissed by the intellect then the will, if not ordered to God’s will, dwells excessively on the evil presented (interior sin) or commits/omits the imagined evil. Sin is always in the will – a defective will ordered to the passions rather than God.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello o milly!
Pinker (scientist): “here is my point, and here are 832 pages of statistics and analysis to back up my claim”
Gray (philosopher): “here is my criticism, with no data to back my claim”
Assertions, even when reasonable, become “brute” in the face of actual data. Let’s face it; Gray sees that the world is getting worse, and it is so because it is his own unscientific empirical data. Mr. Gray, I say, welcome to the world of science!
Moving past the contradictions, I think that we can agree that the passions in themselves are not evil, it is the behaviors chosen out of passion that are sometimes evil. If you disagree, can you describe a “passion” that is in itself evil?
Continued…
I love these conversations:
Pinker (scientist): “here is my point, and here are 832 pages of statistics and analysis to back up my claim”
Gray (philosopher): “here is my criticism, with no data to back my claim”
Assertions, even when reasonable, become “brute” in the face of actual data. Let’s face it; Gray sees that the world is getting worse, and it is so because it is his own unscientific empirical data. Mr. Gray, I say, welcome to the world of science!
Again, this is a philosopher’s argument, this time going with what “ought” rather than to what “is”. “Ought” is valuable in terms of discipline and guidance. “Is” is valuable in terms of understanding the why we behave the way we do. There is no reason for one to be used against the other.
1773 In the passions, as movements of the sensitive appetite, there is neither moral good nor evil. But insofar as they engage reason and will, there is moral good or evil in them.
Moving past the contradictions, I think that we can agree that the passions in themselves are not evil, it is the behaviors chosen out of passion that are sometimes evil. If you disagree, can you describe a “passion” that is in itself evil?
“Evil will” is in the eye of the beholder. Adam wanted the “knowledge” that he lacked. Was such wanting, a drive instilled by our creator, evil? Adam did what he thought was good; he did not intend to hurt anyone.
Translation: “A good, obedient Catholic believes that human nature was corrupted”?
Again, I refer to the article from the conservative source: we have no evidence that A&E ate from the tree of life. Proof that man was never “once” immortal? All the immortals died. O milly, please forgive me, I could not resist.
Is this an argument for a premise about human nature?
It is very difficult to understand why God would give us the potential for addiction, so I understand your sentiments on this. Chemical addiction, for example, involves a great number of conditions that together end in a downward spiral. Addiction is an illness; are illnesses in themselves a corruption of our nature? It is true that addiction is a potential in all people, but the illness begins with choices made out of ignorance and blindness, the choices in themselves are not genetically determined.
Just because we have messes, though, does not mean that messes are a result of corruption of our nature. We have ignorance, and ignorance allows some messes to happen. Jesus, as revelation, cleans up the messes (and gives us the tools to continue the mission).
Continued…
O
OneSheep
Guest
o_mlly;14161355:
That said, we can definitely say that God wants us to be reconciled with Him for our own spiritual well-being, for our earthly experience of “eternal life”.
Note: I did not say it was “the” way of looking at the big picture; I said it is “a” way of looking at the big picture. It was an easy word to miss.
Our timeless God waits for us with compassionate, open arms. He is the prodigal son’s father. On the other hand, the prodigal son projected his father as being wrathful against him. The father did not admonish his son for the corrupted image. The image is understandable and has its place.
I hope you can see that there is a Catholic way of answering Simpleas’ question by showing that our undivided soul and body come from the same benevolent Source.
Thanks!
The problem with the word “owe” is that it indicates that God is looking for payment. Our Father who loves us without limit does not demand anything in return. Any assertion of such demand subtracts from His benevolence. The image becomes coercive.
That said, we can definitely say that God wants us to be reconciled with Him for our own spiritual well-being, for our earthly experience of “eternal life”.
Well, define “tamper”. Revelation unfolds, we know that for sure. We can agree that the anthropology of people having a “corrupted” nature is very important to the faith of many, if not most, Christians, and I agree that it is counterproductive to simply state that man’s nature is not corrupted. The mindset that we are corrupted has its merit and can be viewed as an important part of a spiritual path to Christ. What can proven is that “original sin” can be seen differently without undermining the mystery of Christ. CCC389 is a “brute fact”; it is unsupported, but the spirit of CCC389 stands correct; that the mindset has its place and can lead to repentance. Our faith does not rely on the doctrine of original sin; many faithful before and after St. Augustine did not strictly believe in the doctrine.
Note: I did not say it was “the” way of looking at the big picture; I said it is “a” way of looking at the big picture. It was an easy word to miss.
These two comments complement each other. People fear the wrathful God depicted in the story of Noah, and the fear leads people to embrace the faith. For this reason, it is counterproductive to say absolutely that belief in a wrathful God is wrong or an anathema, even though the belief in a wrathful God is clearly against the theme of a constantly forgiving God.
Our timeless God waits for us with compassionate, open arms. He is the prodigal son’s father. On the other hand, the prodigal son projected his father as being wrathful against him. The father did not admonish his son for the corrupted image. The image is understandable and has its place.
Obedience out of fear may be somewhat enslaving, but when compared to slavery to sin, it is a step in the right direction, is it not? People have their own individual journeys toward discovering God’s unconditional love.
Yes!
I hope you can see that there is a Catholic way of answering Simpleas’ question by showing that our undivided soul and body come from the same benevolent Source.
Thanks!
G
goout
Guest
It is true that God is God, and we are not. Justice recognizes this truth. Our “due” to God is to recognize and acknowledge this truth and respond to it.
“Due” is not a matter of force and coercion, it is a response to this truth.
God is God, we are not. Justice is due to God because he calls us to live in truthful and loving relationship with him, and if we cannot acknowledge who God is, we cannot love him.
It is right and just that we give God what is due him: our loving adoration and worship, ie religion. In love, I desire to adore and worship him, not as a slave but as a son. It is due him and I give it with love.
Others are sons and daughters of God, and so we give them their own due, which is in reference to God. Again, this is not coercion, it is a response to the truth of who God is, and who our neighbors are in his eyes.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Statistics never proved anything; only failed to disprove. Moreover, statistics can easily be manipulated to support a preconceived bias. “But the metric used to determine the deadliness of World War II is different from that used elsewhere in Better Angels where fatalities per 100,000 of the population per year is the preferred measure. If this latter metric is used, World War II is no longer the 9th deadliest episode of mass violence, but the deadliest in more than a 1,000 years.”
hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2013/HSR_2013_Press_Release.pdf
I see no contradictions in the CCC quotes.
Lust, one of many disordered passions, is evil because it is desire perverted by the will in its object to illicit self-pleasure.
Divination is evil and not instilled by God but an act of an evil will. See the CCC “Divinaton and magic.”
Translation: “A -]good, obedient/-] Catholic believes that human nature was corrupted”?
Yes. Through sin, suffering and death entered the world.
" Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” (CCC#1807)
After 529 the matter was settled and the doctrine pronounced. Those who do not accept the teachings are not Catholic. See ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/ORANGE.HTM
Imperfect contrition is better than no contrition and not as pleasing to God as perfect contrition.
Thank you.
NB: I’ve truncated for the sake of concision to address only points of disagreement.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Your words do not sound like there is some penalty for not adoring or worshiping. You are talking about a movement inspired through gratitude, not an “owing”, which is what we generally think of with the word “due”.
Yes, a blossoming of love, a growth of something sown.
- Status