Question about creation of our soul

[OneSheep]

Hello o milly,

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

If you read that whole article, they also support Pinker’s conclusion. That is a good point about that particular statistic, though.

I see no contradictions in the CCC quotes.

With a second look, you are correct, but both passages indicate that the passions in themselves are not morally good or evil, the actions motivated by them can be morally good or evil.

Lust, one of many disordered passions, is evil because it is desire perverted by the will in its object to illicit self-pleasure.

So, the desire for sex, the passion, is not evil, but the actions motivated can be evil.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse.

I will grant that it is very common, if not universal, for any person at some point in their lives to see their own desire for sex as an evil in itself, for the desire plays a part in motivating a person to do evil. Without the desire, though, people would not procreate. In order to reconcile within, it behooves us to come to see this part of ourselves, sexual desire, as a gift. A long history of Christians resenting their own sexuality is now moving toward such reconciliation.

Divination is evil and not instilled by God but an act of an evil will. See the CCC “Divinaton and magic.”

All of God’s creatures desire power in terms of having a greater ability to gather resources and dominate their destiny. However, it is very common for people to resent their own desire for power because it can motivate bad behavior. Therefore, desire for power is commonly seen as an “evil”. There is a place for this mindset, but ultimately an inner reconciliation involves seeing that our own desire for power serves our inclination to survive and thrive (as it does all creatures); as such desire for power is a gift from God.

No doubt, the desire for power can lead to evil acts. However, as with sexual desire these evil acts are committed only when blindness or ignorance are a factor.

A Catholic believes that human nature was corrupted.
Yes. Through sin, suffering and death entered the world.

Christian faith does not depend on the notion that sin changed human nature. One can believe in Christ and see Him as Lord and savior without believing that Adam did something that changed human nature. Instead, it can be seen that humans naturally generate an image of God that is distorted, and this image can indeed be passed to subsequent generations:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

" 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)

God’s justice is mercy, and His mercy is unconditional in this Catholic’s view. If “due” represents a condition, it can be a contradiction. However, the whole image of God’s conditional mercy also has its place, as I have explained. Both images are found among the faithful.

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

Yes, but the “corruption” can be seen as having conceived a distorted image, as explained in CCC399. This is not a corruption of our nature, it is very natural for us to conceive a distorted image in which we fear God. Indeed, in can be viewed that God wills that we develop distorted images when such development motivates us to turn to Him, away from sin.

Imperfect contrition is better than no contrition and not as pleasing to God as perfect contrition.

Exactly, that is what I am saying if you see the theme. “Twas faith that taught my heart to fear, and faith my fears relieved” the famous hymn goes. It describes a normal development of faith. Now, does God find one particular part of the development less “pleasing”? This would depend on one’s image of God. The prodigal son’s Father looked upon a returning son whose face was one of fear and dejection, but He rejoiced!

Again, we can see that our nature, all of it including body and soul, is a gift from our benevolent Father!

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Simpleas,

What you are saying raises new questions:

If people can “be” very good or very bad, did God create them that way?

If God created them that way, how is this benevolent?

If God did not create them that way, who created us?

If we create ourselves, (with our choices) are we also creators of our own nature?

If we are creators of our own nature, why would God allow us to unknowingly make our own individual nature worse?

Given the above questions, did you mean “be” in terms of “people behave badly or goodly” and that is our individuality? That our individual nature does not involve “good” or “bad”, but those words better describe our behaviors?

What do you think?

Blessings, as always.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

What you are saying raises new questions:

If people can “be” very good or very bad, did God create them that way?

If God created them that way, how is this benevolent?

If God did not create them that way, who created us?

If we create ourselves, (with our choices) are we also creators of our own nature?

If we are creators of our own nature, why would God allow us to unknowingly make our own individual nature worse?

Given the above questions, did you mean “be” in terms of “people behave badly or goodly” and that is our individuality? That our individual nature does not involve “good” or “bad”, but those words better describe our behaviors?

What do you think?

Blessings, as always.

Well let’s just say God created people (and everything else) we all agree on that.

I’m tempted to say God created people neither good or bad.

I don’t think our nature is corrupted, I’m seeing it more like lacking in something (preternatural gifts/ sanctifying grace).
This sounds more realistic to me than saying we are born separated from God, corrupted etc.

I think we can become corrupted. If one never looks to the spiritual side of our existence in any form of teaching, then they are mainly materialistic and don’t really see.

I’m starting to see things from a self conscious view, meaning we are all conscious, but might not be conscious of ourselves and this is where we as humans fall apart.

If Adam passed on a human nature that everyone inherited, why are there so many different ‘types’ of people, when we look at ancient histories we can read about good, loving people, and read also about greedy dangerous and murderous people. Even today.

Thanks.

Blessings to you also.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Well let’s just say God created people (and everything else) we all agree on that.

I’m tempted to say God created people neither good or bad.

Why do you say so? Genesis, of course, says He saw us good.

I don’t think our nature is corrupted, I’m seeing it more like lacking in something (preternatural gifts/ sanctifying grace).
This sounds more realistic to me than saying we are born separated from God, corrupted etc

.

Well, we do lack awareness. Separated? Well, sort of. Maybe. It’s a relative term, perhaps…

I think we can become corrupted. If one never looks to the spiritual side of our existence in any form of teaching, then they are mainly materialistic and don’t really see.

But being materialistic is very natural, right? We are territorial like other animals, but while most other creatures are territorial about actual space, we are also very territorial about “stuff”. In all cases, there is a drive to hoard and protect resources. Given that our drive to be territorial is a gift from God, it is not a corruption. I agree, though, people can be totally absorbed in it, and then it is a problem. People involved in such obsession do so without knowing what they are doing, yes, they don’t see!

“Corruption” sounds more permanent. I would say that we “become” obsessed, addicted, etc., but these are temporary conditions. We might differ in our usage of “corruption”.

Here is the other (possible) problem: As soon as we characterize another person as having a corrupt being we fall into the same trap as racism and other forms of resentment. Even though your own use of the word “corruption” involves no resentment whatsoever, someone hearing or reading your word may take it differently, and genuinely view the “corrupted” as having a lower value.

I’m starting to see things from a self conscious view, meaning we are all conscious, but might not be conscious of ourselves and this is where we as humans fall apart.

Well, yes, we are not born very self-conscious, but the “falling apart” and the coupled suffering drives us to become more conscious, right? It is part of the process.

If Adam passed on a human nature that everyone inherited, why are there so many different ‘types’ of people, when we look at ancient histories we can read about good, loving people, and read also about greedy dangerous and murderous people. Even today.

This is a little different coming from you, Simpleas. Aren’t we all the same “type”, but have differences in self awareness (self-consciousness)? We are all capable of behaving both dangerously and lovingly, right?

Thanks.

Blessings to you also.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Why do you say so? Genesis, of course, says He saw us good

Yes, not just Humans, but everything else was good also. Didn’t mean it would stay that way. We know this.

But being materialistic is very natural, right? We are territorial like other animals, but while most other creatures are territorial about actual space, we are also very territorial about “stuff”. In all cases, there is a drive to hoard and protect resources. Given that our drive to be territorial is a gift from God, it is not a corruption. I agree, though, people can be totally absorbed in it, and then it is a problem. People involved in such obsession do so without knowing what they are doing, yes, they don’t see!

“Corruption” sounds more permanent. I would say that we “become” obsessed, addicted, etc., but these are temporary conditions. We might differ in our usage of “corruption”.

Yes I think we do differ in our use of the word corrupt. I don’t think of it as a permanent state.
Also when I’m thinking materialistic, I’m thinking about all the stuff we don’t actually really need in order to live.

Here is the other (possible) problem: As soon as we characterize another person as having a corrupt being we fall into the same trap as racism and other forms of resentment. Even though your own use of the word “corruption” involves no resentment whatsoever, someone hearing or reading your word may take it differently, and genuinely view the “corrupted” as having a lower value.

I know how reading others words can be difficult and we sometimes misunderstand what a poster is actually saying. I wasn’t referring to a persons being as corrupt, I’m thinking a person can become corrupt, much like in how you would describe it above as obsessed, addicted.

Well, yes, we are not born very self-conscious, but the “falling apart” and the coupled suffering drives us to become more conscious, right? It is part of the process.

When we become self conscious at a certain age, that is when the process starts. We need to work on that, but some people, maybe even all of us at some time stop being self aware and that is when we need to renew ourselves. But I’m aware that some people do not do this, they become obsessed/addicted and lose interest in their own self. They can will themselves to renewal, but sometimes it’s much easier not to think for oneself.

This is a little different coming from you, Simpleas. Aren’t we all the same “type”, but have differences in self awareness (self-consciousness)? We are all capable of behaving both dangerously and lovingly, right?

I was pondering that if Adam passed on a ‘corrupted’ nature, why then are some people more self aware than others. I was just lazy in my use of the word type.
I think that if a person is self conscious, then they may be able to be more aware of other people (their needs etc) animals and nature.

Yes we all can behave dangerously/lovingly, I think we covered this before, yet when it comes to murder, either of an individual or in wars, not everyone is capable.

PS: I am a slightly different Simpleas to the one you connected with 3 years ago! MY is it that long ago!!!

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas,

Yes, not just Humans, but everything else was good also. Didn’t mean it would stay that way. We know this.

Actually, nothing in scripture says that people changed their nature. If you read Genesis literally, it is an explanation for human pain and so forth, but these changes do not change what God first said about His creation! Good creatures made bad choices for understandable reasons, and still do.

Yes I think we do differ in our use of the word corrupt. I don’t think of it as a permanent state.
Also when I’m thinking materialistic, I’m thinking about all the stuff we don’t actually really need in order to live.

Yes, that is the way humans operate. When we are caught up in our drive for stuff, we get a lot of stuff we don’t need. The drive is good; the enslavement is what we suffer, even though we like shopping!

And yes, addictions, obsessions, even some pathologies can be seen as temporary. But even if these conditions are life-long, they do not change the way God sees us, they do not change the infinite value of our being. It is more like the addict has a corrupted physiology and/or psychology, but the person himself is not corrupted in terms of value or goodness in God’s eyes.

“through the Spirit we see that whatever exists in any way is good” - St. Augustine

I know how reading others words can be difficult and we sometimes misunderstand what a poster is actually saying. I wasn’t referring to a persons being as corrupt, I’m thinking a person can become corrupt, much like in how you would describe it above as obsessed, addicted.

Yes, the key thing is that we describe others as people just like us, and you agree.

When we become self conscious at a certain age, that is when the process starts. We need to work on that, but some people, maybe even all of us at some time stop being self aware and that is when we need to renew ourselves. But I’m aware that some people do not do this, they become obsessed/addicted and lose interest in their own self. They can will themselves to renewal, but sometimes it’s much easier not to think for oneself.

I’m not sure that they necessarily “lose interest”. It is more like people do not realize that real fulfillment and growth stop coming from material stuff and status, and that true fulfillment comes from works of mercy and spiritual development. Since we are bombarded with advertising, we don’t get the emphasis too much.

I was pondering that if Adam passed on a ‘corrupted’ nature, why then are some people more self aware than others. I was just lazy in my use of the word type.
I think that if a person is self conscious, then they may be able to be more aware of other people (their needs etc) animals and nature.

Yes we all can behave dangerously/lovingly, I think we covered this before, yet when it comes to murder, either of an individual or in wars, not everyone is capable.

Well, it probable depends on the use of “capable”.

IF I:

1. either did not fear the law, or thought that I would not get caught
2. was blind to the value of a person by anger, resentment, or strong desire
3. did not recoil at violence (being ex-military would suffice)
4. did not fear the reaction of all the people around me about my violence
5. found some purpose in destroying the other person, i.e. a witness to something I did wrong, a love triangle, etc. etc.
6. did not have the ideology of forgiveness and reconciliation (or was blinded to the ideology)
7. did not care about the 10 commandments (or was blinded to their importance)

I could murder.

Can you relate to all the “ifs”? Is there any one of those that you are not “capable” of? Think of what your mindset could be if you were raised in a different way, in a different environment.

PS: I am a slightly different Simpleas to the one you connected with 3 years ago! MY is it that long ago!!!

Thanks

Well, you are more confident, for sure. Wow, three years!

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Actually, nothing in scripture says that people changed their nature. If you read Genesis literally, it is an explanation for human pain and so forth, but these changes do not change what God first said about His creation! Good creatures made bad choices for understandable reasons, and still do.

Did I say it did? Thought I explained how I was thinking, that people are born unaware until development kicks starts the process, but that we can become ‘corrupt’.

Aren’t you taking the words of God describing his creation as good literally though?
Yes good people can make bad choices, but we learn from this, it’s a struggle though.

Yes, that is the way humans operate. When we are caught up in our drive for stuff, we get a lot of stuff we don’t need. The drive is good; the enslavement is what we suffer, even though we like shopping!

Yep and that is where we need to change.

And yes, addictions, obsessions, even some pathologies can be seen as temporary. But even if these conditions are life-long, they do not change the way God sees us, they do not change the infinite value of our being. It is more like the addict has a corrupted physiology and/or psychology, but the person himself is not corrupted in terms of value or goodness in God’s eyes.

Think we agree on this.

“through the Spirit we see that whatever exists in any way is good” - St. Augustine

Whatever exists may be good, but it’s what the existence of that being may do that is the cause of an others pain.

I’m not sure that they necessarily “lose interest”. It is more like people do not realize that real fulfillment and growth stop coming from material stuff and status, and that true fulfillment comes from works of mercy and spiritual development. Since we are bombarded with advertising, we don’t get the emphasis too much.

Agree, but don’t you think people seem to not like to have to make choices or decisions about them self in some cases? Or that they will blame the other for their fault?

Can you relate to all the “ifs”? Is there any one of those that you are not “capable” of? Think of what your mindset could be if you were raised in a different way, in a different environment.

I thought about this before, being brought up somewhere else in a different religion or no religion etc, what I might think or do. I can say yes, that could have been me given those circumstances. But I’m not in those circumstances, and I can only believe in myself as I think now. And relate to the world, people and animals how I believe I should. That’s the best way I can put my answer in words.

Is the thread getting sidetracked now? Should this be discussed with a different thread question, or as I think it is, it’s still related to Human nature from Adam and Eve to now.

Well, you are more confident, for sure. Wow, three years!

Thanks Onesheep

Have a nice day.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas,

Did I say it did? Thought I explained how I was thinking, that people are born unaware until development kicks starts the process, but that we can become ‘corrupt’.

The hang up is in the word “become”. It is not a matter of our being, our nature, our own value. “Become” corrupt, evil, bad, etc. etc. are usually used to describe people when we truly devalue them in some way. So even when we do not mean to devalue, others may hear or read our words and be moved to devalue others. Richard Rohr once said to me that the Church does not have the langauge for nondualistic ways of looking at people, but I disagree! We can avoid any language that paints people in a negative way.

We can say that a person is blind, angry, caught up in desire, has an empathy disability, many words that can describe our condition without devalueing our existence. I know, it seems a little bit “picky”, because that is not your intent at all, and even saying “he is angry” might move someone to feel negatively toward the person we are describing. It is really tough to communicate effectively without hearing tone.

Aren’t you taking the words of God describing his creation as good literally though?

Yes, good point! It just so happens that my own experience of people is such that I agree with the author of Genesis, that God saw what he created as good.

Yes good people can make bad choices, but we learn from this, it’s a struggle though.

Yes, its part of the process of growth.

Whatever exists may be good, but it’s what the existence of that being may do that is the cause of an others pain.

Yes, we do evil acts.

Agree, but don’t you think people seem to not like to have to make choices or decisions about them self in some cases? Or that they will blame the other for their fault?

Yes, but again these are things done by beautiful creatures made by God. We have denial and blaming of others to protect ourselves to some degree, there is a place for these capacities.

So, do you see body and soul coming from the same source?

I thought about this before, being brought up somewhere else in a different religion or no religion etc, what I might think or do. I can say yes, that could have been me given those circumstances. But I’m not in those circumstances, and I can only believe in myself as I think now. And relate to the world, people and animals how I believe I should. That’s the best way I can put my answer in words.

We agree on this. This is what I mean by “capable”.

Is the thread getting sidetracked now? Should this be discussed with a different thread question, or as I think it is, it’s still related to Human nature from Adam and Eve to now.

Thanks Onesheep

Have a nice day

Most of my day involved bringing my mom to a hospital and dealing with her care. It was “introduction to elder parent care”. Please pray for her, she is in a lot of pain. And my Dad too, he is struggling.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

The hang up is in the word “become”. It is not a matter of our being, our nature, our own value. “Become” corrupt, evil, bad, etc. etc. are usually used to describe people when we truly devalue them in some way. So even when we do not mean to devalue, others may hear or read our words and be moved to devalue others. Richard Rohr once said to me that the Church does not have the langauge for nondualistic ways of looking at people, but I disagree! We can avoid any language that paints people in a negative way.

We can say that a person is blind, angry, caught up in desire, has an empathy disability, many words that can describe our condition without devalueing our existence. I know, it seems a little bit “picky”, because that is not your intent at all, and even saying “he is angry” might move someone to feel negatively toward the person we are describing. It is really tough to communicate effectively without hearing tone.

Yes it does sound a bit picky, I get what you are saying with regards to what some people might read words to mean, but even the use of any negative word to describe someone could lead others to devalue people.

Yes, good point! It just so happens that my own experience of people is such that I agree with the author of Genesis, that God saw what he created as good.

Cool, I think most people have goodness too. But of course then we can see how some people regard others a disobedient and God sends them away…

Yes, but again these are things done by beautiful creatures made by God. We have denial and blaming of others to protect ourselves to some degree, there is a place for these capacities.

So, do you see body and soul coming from the same source?

Not sure I understand what you are asking this question for? We all come from the same source.

Most of my day involved bringing my mom to a hospital and dealing with her care. It was “introduction to elder parent care”. Please pray for her, she is in a lot of pain. And my Dad too, he is struggling.

I shall pray for them both and light some candles.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Sunday Simpleas,

Yes it does sound a bit picky, I get what you are saying with regards to what some people might read words to mean, but even the use of any negative word to describe someone could lead others to devalue people.

Yes.

Cool, I think most people have goodness too. But of course then we can see how some people regard others a disobedient and God sends them away…

.

Does God ever send anyone away? Or is He always waiting for us? These are the questions that show different images of God.

Not sure I understand what you are asking this question for? We all come from the same source.

Here is what I was addressing:

So with regards to sin, we are told we inherit original sin from Adam and Eve, yet we don’t inherit their spiritual being (soul) it comes directly from God.

The soul animates the body I’ve also learned, and as the soul comes directly from God I find it hard to understand how we are born with the original sin of the first parents.

Even looking at it like some do, that we are born lacking grace and so need to be baptised, we are still baptising to cleanse the soul of the original sin committed by the first parent, and I just don’t connect the dots…

How do we get our own individual souls from our God, but say that are in some way affected by the sin of the first parents?

What I am saying is that the anthropology such that we are affected by the sins of our first parents is problematic because both our body and soul come from God. We still get back to the question “Why did God make us this way, capable of sin?” or even more troubling, “Why did God make us this way, evil as we are?”.

To address the second question, one can begin by questioning the premise that we are evil or partly evil, which we have been talking about. We are not. Then, to go to the first question, we are capable of doing hurtful behaviors because we lack awareness and are capable of blindness.

One of the ways of looking at the creation story is to think of how lonely and isolating it was to be a tribe of people among belligerent neighbors. The people are empowered by knowing that their God is all-powerful and will support them, right? On the other hand, what good is a God who is all-powerful if he does not care about his people, which is shown in all the struggles of their lives: famine, snakes and predators, disease, misfortune, natural disasters, addiction and all human trappings, etc.?

It would be very easy for the tribe member to blame God for every little mishap, “He doesn’t care about us!” On the other hand, the healthy conscience recoils, “Surely He will be angry at my ingratitude!”. The creation story is an investigation into this whole dynamic, an investigation that in the end leads the reader to feel a little guilty, but at the same time comes to the conclusion that we have misfortune because we deserve it, not because of God’s powerlessness or because of God’s lack of care for us. The tribe member knows, then, a God who protects, even though he has to tread carefully, (with obedience).

I shall pray for them both and light some candles.

Thank you!

 

[simpleas]

Good afternoon

Originally Posted by OneSheep

What I am saying is that the anthropology such that we are affected by the sins of our first parents is problematic because both our body and soul come from God.

Ok, the first two people created (A&E) were created by God both body and soul. Their offspring (us) come from their matter. The soul on the other hand comes directly from God. The Catholic teaching is that God creates the soul or infuses it etc, at the time of conception, completed by the humans, the humans do not create or pass on a soul, only matter. So while we can not say body and soul are separate, the heart of my question at the beginning of the thread was how then is it that every soul is affected by the sin of the first two. I can easily understand that experience in life causes us to ‘miss the mark’ I don’t find it easy to understand, what almost seems like a scientific explanation.

To address the second question, one can begin by questioning the premise that we are evil or partly evil, which we have been talking about. We are not. Then, to go to the first question, we are capable of doing hurtful behaviors because we lack awareness and are capable of blindness.

The answer would be because the first two people sinned. Lacking in awareness/blindness would be seen as not being ‘perfect’.

One of the ways of looking at the creation story is to think of how lonely and isolating it was to be a tribe of people among belligerent neighbors. The people are empowered by knowing that their God is all-powerful and will support them, right? On the other hand, what good is a God who is all-powerful if he does not care about his people, which is shown in all the struggles of their lives: famine, snakes and predators, disease, misfortune, natural disasters, addiction and all human trappings, etc.?

Not just the creation story, that is part of human life/experience.

It would be very easy for the tribe member to blame God for every little mishap, “He doesn’t care about us!” On the other hand, the healthy conscience recoils, “Surely He will be angry at my ingratitude!”. The creation story is an investigation into this whole dynamic, an investigation that in the end leads the reader to feel a little guilty, but at the same time comes to the conclusion that we have misfortune because we deserve it, not because of God’s powerlessness or because of God’s lack of care for us. The tribe member knows, then, a God who protects, even though he has to tread carefully, (with obedience).

Having to be obedient must mean that there is a chance you will not. A&E had that chance/choice. So we know God knew what would happen.

Where then does sin come from? If not from the original parents, or from God. It is not God who is blamed for any fall, it is the humans.

I. WHERE SIN ABOUNDED, GRACE ABOUNDED ALL THE MORE

The reality of sin

386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

387 Only the light of divine Revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins. Without the knowledge Revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure, etc. Only in the knowledge of God’s plan for man can we grasp that sin is an abuse of the freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another.

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Good afternoon

No, Good Morning. We are the biggest bully on the block, we get to say what time of day it is.

Ok, the first two people created (A&E) were created by God both body and soul. Their offspring (us) come from their matter. The soul on the other hand comes directly from God. The Catholic teaching is that God creates the soul or infuses it etc, at the time of conception, completed by the humans, the humans do not create or pass on a soul, only matter. So while we can not say body and soul are separate, the heart of my question at the beginning of the thread was how then is it that every soul is affected by the sin of the first two. I can easily understand that experience in life causes us to ‘miss the mark’ I don’t find it easy to understand, what almost seems like a scientific explanation.

I think that one aspect of original sin doctrine was indeed an attempt at a scientific explanation. It is easy to observe that we are all born capable of sin, and since we cannot fathom such a capability coming from God, we say it must come from Adam, and specifically from sin itself. The reasoning breaks down when we take a hard look at Adam, and notice that he was created by God, but he also sinned, so was therefore capable. To solve this problem, it was added that Adam had a “preternatural” being, which makes it clear that God made Adam not to be able to sin, but Adam messed up anyway. Bottom line: we are capable of sin, and it is our fault.

The “our fault” part is accurate in terms of choosing to sin, we are to take ownership of our choices. The problem is in letting blame stay without forgiving, and we can forgive through understanding our limitations (in awareness).

Why does God create us with limitations? Well, we are still being created, are we not?

The answer would be because the first two people sinned. Lacking in awareness/blindness would be seen as not being ‘perfect’.

Right, A & E were not perfect. If they were omniscient, they would already known what would happen by eating the fruit. They are depicted as real people in the story, not some super-beings. I’m not sure what you were addressing with the first sentence above, but I think we’ve sorta covered it.

Having to be obedient must mean that there is a chance you will not. A&E had that chance/choice. So we know God knew what would happen.

Where then does sin come from? If not from the original parents, or from God. It is not God who is blamed for any fall, it is the humans

.

Right again. The purpose of the story is to show that we are capable of sin, and it is not God’s fault, it is ours. In reality, though, there is a shared responsibility, right? People are born ignorant and capable of blindness, so my hurting others is a possibility, stemming from my limitations. However, God never wants us to hurt others, the choice to do something hurtful comes directly from the human.

CCC 386 and 387 explain that we sin, and that sin is an abuse of freedom, yes. We can show that no one ever knows what they are doing when they sin, but these sections apply well.

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story’s ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to “convict the world concerning sin”,262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

New International Version John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

We can see that Christ did not come to condemn Adam or anyone. The word “convict” is not to be used in a condemning way at all, in my reading. We love a God who does not condemn us, but forgives us, always. If CCC 388 appears to contradict this mercy, we are to find a meaningful way of sorting it out. If God is depicted in any way that demonstrates He loves us less than the person who loves us most, there is a contradiction.

Your thread here is about dealing with the contradiction.

Blessings always!

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

No, Good Morning. We are the biggest bully on the block, we get to say what time of day it is.

No it’s the individual that’s a bully!..

Why does God create us with limitations? Well, we are still being created, are we not?

You’ve got a point there, but I think this would lead to another discussion, so I’m going leave it here.

Thanks for your time