Sin in the light of biology

[grannymh]

Humans are evil by nature. Nature is evil and we have to surpass it.

When one understands human nature in the light of Catholic doctrines…humans are not evil by nature.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/355.htm

 

[grannymh]

One theological question I find often gets overlooked is how we are to understand sin in the light of biology. Knowing, as we do, that we share many behavioral tendencies with our animal brethren, how can we present a sound case for the reality of sin?

If one considers that one’s own being is simply a biological, decomposing combination of material/physical guts and bones which can only rot or turn into fascinating fossils----
I guess it would be a tad hard to explain sin.

 

[Theophorus]

The question of the OP was about biological nature, I did not talk about the nature of our soul.
So I talked about the “nature” in an animal like sense, so just put primal urges in for my nature and you see that you just said the same as I did.

Human nature is a unified composite of body and Soul in the Catholic understanding. You can’t refer to a persons nature by refering to either in isolation.thehuman being has the nature of rational animal not simply animal.

 

[GEddie]

Human nature is a unified composite of body and Soul in the Catholic understanding. You can’t refer to a persons nature by refering to either in isolation.thehuman being has the nature of rational animal not simply animal.

But there are certain aspects of our being that are purely animal. Some of which relate directly to behaviors we think of as “sins”.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Theophorus]

But there are certain aspects of our being that are purely animal. Some of which relate directly to behaviors we think of as “sins”.

ICXC NIKA.

No, it’s disordered acting out of such behaviours that we see as sinful, a deficiency in the rational part if you will.

 

[Gaber]

Hmm. Well, there are obviously a few important differences. Jesus Christ, for instance.

Was Jesus around at the time of Gautama? And yet, as God has no component of duration, whatever constitutes the Second Person may have been known another way. And while I certainly admit of a historical Jesus, what is ascribed to Him is highly questionable and has other more useful significance as well.

The Buddhists focus on the dissolution of the self and desire, whereas Christians are called to perfect the self through selfless love and to realize that our desires all point to one ultimate desire: God.

What does that mean to you? I haven’t read a single pious Christian on here who has a clue as to what that actually might mean. It certailnly doesn’t mean annihilation in the way most seem to see it. And the “one ultimate desire” yet proves only to be a gateway to tha accomplishment of successful inquiry. One God, one end.

Sorry if I was being presumptuous, I just seem to remember reading a post of yours that spoke of meditating with the intent of realizing that one is not a person. Am I mistaken?

As I said, the idea of annihlation, as you appear to regard that, is a mistaken perception. Am I not here at this keyboard, typing to you? Were we on Skype, you would be looking at my ugly mug. And while by one stretch what you say could be construed as so, it is more about realizing what a person, and all material associations are and are not. What is happenig, I think, with the pious reading Buddhis lore, is that there is no linguistic comprehension of words in their sense in the ordinary Christian vocabulary. The referents are not only different, but viewed in a different paradigm. Christianity is an ascending faith, Buddhism is a descending faith. Both are forms, neither is cpletely accurate.

And you are right that an entirely literal interpretation of the Genesis stories is not essential to Catholic theology. However, certain elements of them are:

1. the descent of man from a single pair of parents

That may be something you can beleive, but it may not be so in fact.

1. the original state of sinlessness of those parents, which conferred upon them certain graces

Yes, if you are going to say something about our origin in a nice way in order to avoid scandaland bad feelings, that could be a way to put it. But as it turned out, that’s not very useful any more.

1. the fall of humanity through an act of willful disobedience to God (we’re not required to believe it was actually the eating of fruit, though)

Yes, it was actually eating the fruit, and there was a “tree” and a “serpant.” but similarly to the idea of preseving the egoic dignity of those hearing a story of origin, those as well are symbolic. Willful disobediance? That is a nice dramatic touch, I’d say, but it simply was an inevitable moment. Maybe God was lurking in the background, grinning. But hey, I’m being symbolic.

 

[GEddie]

No, it’s disordered acting out of such behaviours that we see as sinful, a deficiency in the rational part if you will.

“Disordered” maybe in a theological, but not a biological sense.

There is nothing wrong or “disordered” in a monkey stealing bananas; nor in his engaging in copulation with every other monkey it can find; nor in his engaging in killing of other monkeys for alpha-male or any other reasons. Those are perfectly normal animal behaviors.

However, despite the great similarity of our human bodies to the monkey, and the fact that we possess the same kind of life; those behaviors are wrong, or “disordered”, in human life. The difference is that we have a higher mind (the product of our human soul & big head) that enables us to know right from wrong.

ICXC NIKA

 

[prodigalson2011]

Was Jesus around at the time of Gautama? And yet, as God has no component of duration, whatever constitutes the Second Person may have been known another way. And while I certainly admit of a historical Jesus, what is ascribed to Him is highly questionable and has other more useful significance as well.

Well, I won’t turn this thread into a debate on the historicity of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, and I’m not quite sure how the question of the contemporaneousness of Jesus and Gautama relates to our conversation.

What does that mean to you? I haven’t read a single pious Christian on here who has a clue as to what that actually might mean. It certailnly doesn’t mean annihilation in the way most seem to see it. And the “one ultimate desire” yet proves only to be a gateway to tha accomplishment of successful inquiry. One God, one end.

In many Eastern traditions, desire is seen as the source of all suffering, and self is held to be an illusion. According, in various degrees, to these philosophies, the elimination of desire and the realization of the individual self as a material manifestation of one greater spirit, whether they call it Tao or Maya, is the path to enlightenment and peace. I do not dispute that these traditions can provide a sense of purpose, peace and meaning to one’s life, but they are simply not compatible with the worldview of someone who accepts Jesus Christ as being who he says he is. One view holds that we are essentially pieces of God, or whatever spiritual force the particular religion/philosophy posits, and that we will one day return into that homogenous state of being (all things flow from and return to the Tao, as Lao Tzu says; all existence is merely the dance of Maya, as the Hindus say) while the other holds that we are God’s creation, each with a unique soul that will retain its sense of individual identity for all eternity.

As I said, the idea of annihlation, as you appear to regard that, is a mistaken perception. Am I not here at this keyboard, typing to you? Were we on Skype, you would be looking at my ugly mug. And while by one stretch what you say could be construed as so, it is more about realizing what a person, and all material associations are and are not. What is happenig, I think, with the pious reading Buddhis lore, is that there is no linguistic comprehension of words in their sense in the ordinary Christian vocabulary. The referents are not only different, but viewed in a different paradigm. Christianity is an ascending faith, Buddhism is a descending faith. Both are forms, neither is cpletely accurate.

My perception is not as mistaken as you may think. I am not a lifelong Christian, and I spent a good bit of time in the realms of Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism. I comprehend their meaning perfectly well. Again, this raises an entirely different debate. I believe Christianity is completely accurate, which is why I ascribe to it. If it is not completely accurate, then it is a total sham. New age revisionism simply doesn’t hold water in light of the claims Christianity makes.

That may be something you can beleive, but it may not be so in fact.

On the other hand, it may well be so in fact. However, this is not a question of my personal beliefs or what may or may not prove to be historically factual. This is, regardless, at this point in time, a requisite standard of orthodox theology.

Yes, if you are going to say something about our origin in a nice way in order to avoid scandaland bad feelings, that could be a way to put it. But as it turned out, that’s not very useful any more.

Its theological necessity does not hinge upon making our beginnings more palatable, and in fact it does just the opposite. It presents a picture of a species damned by the insolence of a single couple (ha. single couple. rimshot) Its import lies in the death of Christ, and the doctrines of sin and salvation. In order for man to require redemption, he must be responsible for his own damnation. It only ceases to be useful if one limits historical reality to what can be discerned through materialistic inquiry.

Yes, it was actually eating the fruit, and there was a “tree” and a “serpant.” but similarly to the idea of preseving the egoic dignity of those hearing a story of origin, those as well are symbolic. Willful disobediance? That is a nice dramatic touch, I’d say, but it simply was an inevitable moment. Maybe God was lurking in the background, grinning. But hey, I’m being symbolic.

That first sentence was a pretty longwinded way of saying exactly what I already said. But, as for the willful disobedience, it is not simply a dramatic touch. Again, the Christian story makes absolutely no sense if man did not, of his own will, separate himself from God. Whether it was inevitable or not does not dismiss the reality of free will.

You are entitled to your views, and I can’t deny that it’s fun to banter, but your theology is closer to Gnosticism than Catholicism, which is the perspective from which I am interested in addressing this question.

 

[Gaber]

Well, I won’t turn this thread into a debate on the historicity of Jesus as presented in the Gospels, and I’m not quite sure how the question of the contemporaneousness of Jesus and Gautama relates to our conversation

I only was pointing out that Jesus not being personally present at the time of Gautama, the Son of God may then have been known by other means.

In many Eastern traditions, desire is seen as the source of all suffering, and self is held to be an illusion.

Maybe you mean attachment to desire and to the idea that person is self. Herein lies the origin of the vow of poverty.
Desire will always manifest as long as there is a body/mind. Most people just don’t get that thoughts are serving suggestions, not facts.

According, in various degrees, to these philosophies, the elimination of desire and the realization of the individual self as a material manifestation of one greater spirit, whether they call it Tao or Maya, is the path to enlightenment and peace.

The individual, which means indivisible, self, when discovered, reveals the personal self to be a construct. You seem to be mixing, or adulterating, ideas.

I do not dispute that these traditions can provide a sense of purpose, peace and meaning to one’s life, but they are simply not compatible with the worldview of someone who accepts Jesus Christ as being who he says he is.

I accept Jesus as the Christ and find no contradiction, only verification, ofr non dualism in what He says.

One view holds that we are essentially pieces of God, or whatever spiritual force the particular religion/philosophy posits, and that we will one day return into that homogenous state of being (all things flow from and return to the Tao, as Lao Tzu says; all existence is merely the dance of Maya, as the Hindus say) while the other holds that we are God’s creation, each with a unique soul that will retain its sense of individual identity for all eternity.

God is not in pieces, so that is a misperception. A a weak analogy, you can say that you are no more a piece of God thatn a finger is a piece of your hand. Nothing leaves God to return, nothing returns having left. God is indivisible. on the other hand, mind, the adversary, has as its sole job the division of the whole into comprihensible parts to greater or lesser degrees and kinds of accuracy. Ad, of course, “individual” and “identity” are both rooted in and derived from the word “one.”

My perception is not as mistaken as you may think. I am not a lifelong Christian, and I spent a good bit of time in the realms of Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism. I comprehend their meaning perfectly well. Again, this raises an entirely different debate. I believe Christianity is completely accurate, which is why I ascribe to it. If it is not completely accurate, then it is a total sham. New age revisionism simply doesn’t hold water in light of the claims Christianity makes.

I don’t know about new age revisionism, and aI don’t think that Catholicism is a complete sham, by any means, though the vast majority fail to pentrate it. But I see no disagreement between the conclusions of any of the great contemplatives, Catholic or not, nor any disagreement with the alleged founder of our Church. A if you compren=hended their meaning perfectly well, you may simply have considered the religious aspects of those modalities, those being no more accurate, or less, than unpenetrated Catholicism. You prefer Christianity, and that’s just fine.

On the other hand, it may well be so in fact. However, this is not a question of my personal beliefs or what may or may not prove to be historically factual. This is, regardless, at this point in time, a requisite standard of orthodox theology.

Believe it, then. Just remember that belief is not knowledge.

Its theological necessity does not hinge upon making our beginnings more palatable, and in fact it does just the opposite. It presents a picture of a species damned by the insolence of a single couple (ha. single couple. rimshot) Its import lies in the death of Christ, and the doctrines of sin and salvation. In order for man to require redemption, he must be responsible for his own damnation. It only ceases to be useful if one limits historical reality to what can be discerned through materialistic inquiry.

Good humor Mine isn’t a materialistic inquiry. And I maintain that all what you said about the redemption cycle is symbolic of something far more profound than pearance and beleif in that as history. That would be materialism.

That first sentence was a pretty longwinded way of saying exactly what I already said. But, as for the willful disobedience, it is not simply a dramatic touch. Again, the Christian story makes absolutely no sense if man did not, of his own will, separate himself from God. Whether it was inevitable or not does not dismiss the reality of free will.

It wasn’t an act of will, it was the discovery of will. It was a realization of a new capacity which separated man from nature in mind. That is original sin–the subject/pbject illusion of separation.

You are entitled to your views, and I can’t deny that it’s fun to banter, but your theology is closer to Gnosticism than Catholicism, which is the perspective from which I am interested in addressing this question.

Please, not the Gnosticism misinterpretaion! And if you address it long enough and spiritedly enough from any perspective, you will reach the same inevitable conclusion. And you will ae to change your screen name! God Bless!

 

[grannymh]

But there are certain aspects of our being that are purely animal. Some of which relate directly to behaviors we think of as “sins”.

ICXC NIKA.

The aspects of our nature which possibly might be considered purely animal are found in the material/physical anatomy; for example, humans are vertebrates. Bones, per se, do not choose to commit sins.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The aspects of our nature which possibly might be considered purely animal are found in the material/physical anatomy; for example, humans are vertebrates. Bones, per se, do not choose to commit sins.

I would have to disagree. Some of our most powerful drives, particularly the sex drive and the “fight or flight” mechanism, are very animalistic in nature, i.e. they both aim towards biological survival, by means of reproduction and self-preservation, respectively, without regard to intellectual/spiritual processes; hence why otherwise rational people develop such irrational phobias, and why many have so much difficulty controlling their sexual urges.

The question then becomes was there a time when man was preserved from the action of these mechanisms?

 

[GEddie]

I would have to disagree. Some of our most powerful drives, particularly the sex drive and the “fight or flight” mechanism, are very animalistic in nature, i.e. they both aim towards biological survival, by means of reproduction and self-preservation, respectively, without regard to intellectual/spiritual processes; hence why otherwise rational people develop such irrational phobias, and why many have so much difficulty controlling their sexual urges.

The question then becomes was there a time when man was preserved from the action of these mechanisms?

Very good question, PS2011.

Consider that the human body is very poor at keeping alive compared to other animals; it is extremely easy for the body to die; staying alive is hard. We have neither the muscular strength, nor the nature sensitivity, nor the fine senses that enable other species easy survival. The human body depends upon it’s mind to overcome danger, but the mind is often first to fail under biological stress, and the body dies.

Is this a design flaw? Or is it the result of a situation where “spiritual processes” that once overpowered death, therefore making biological durability unnecessary, are now inactive?

Likewise, is the relative weakness of the human will to command the sexual instinct, due to the weakening of our intellectual process as the result of dealing with a mortal body?

ICXC NIKA

 

[edwest2]

One theological question I find often gets overlooked is how we are to understand sin in the light of biology. Knowing, as we do, that we share many behavioral tendencies with our animal brethren, how can we present a sound case for the reality of sin?

For instance, acts of aggression, such as bullying, closely mirror the instinctual establishment of a “pecking order” in many animal species. Or take the inclination towards lust and infidelity that is now seen as a byproduct of an evolutionary drive to spread one’s genes. How do we hold one another responsible for these behaviors if they are the product, not of a fall from grace, but of our very origins?

This is an interesting but irrelevant question. It falls under the idea of “evolutionary psychology.” And under the false idea that humans are just animals with slightly greater intelligence.

The Church, by Divine Revelation, teaches us that we are above all of the animals. God tells us in the Old Testament and Jesus reaffirms it in the New - He has come to call sinners to repentance.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JackHandy]

The problem I’m posing is how you would explain man’s need for redemption if his sinful inclinations are a result of pure biology and not a fall from grace/disobedience to God.

If I understand this, we start with “sinful inclinations are a result of pure biology”.
Then the next part is “how do we explain man’s need for redemption with this as a starting point”.

First point: Original sin is passed on from Adam and Eve. Science tells us biology is what passes characteristics, mannerisms and personality traits on from parents to children.

Second point: Our physical bodies are intimately related to our sin nature. (See Romans Ch 7 for example.)

Third point: See particularly Romans 7:17-20. To me it appears that we are only slaves to sin because of our mortal bodies. See also vs 24 to 25.

Fourth point: Jesus was tempted as we are yet without sin. Since Christ is God, this testing could only have come through his human body (biology). (Source Heb 4:15)

Fifth point: Everything above is meant to show that the impetus to sin comes through our mortal bodies and that we are powerless against it on our own.

Finally: Since we cannot do anything about this on our own, we are in need of redemption.

Hope this helps you and God Bless