D
DoughnutGuy
Guest
The more I think about it, the more I question the defensibility of original sin and concupiscence. There seems to me to be no doubt that God could have created the laws of nature such that Adam and Eve would not pass original sin and concupiscence onto their descendants. It is certainly not a logical impossibility; therefore, being omnipotent, He could have done it. It would have been a simple act of will for Him to decide that Immaculate Conception was the rule rather than the exception.
If He had, some people would still have used their free will to sin in human history: but surely far, far fewer. Only four people created without sin have existed in human history, and half of them did not sin. In contrast, every single human being conceived with original sin and concupiscence has sinned. It does seem awfully like God stacked the decks against us.
It is all very well to say we have free will. Yes, regardless of concupiscence, every personal sin I commit is my own fault. However, if God had decided not to invent original sin and concupiscence, we would not be naturally inclined to sin. Therefore, far fewer people would have used their free will to sin. There would have been far less evil in the world to offend God. From God’s own perspective, if he had decided that original sin and concupiscence were not transmitted by decent, far fewer people would have disobeyed him. Because of God’s choice, there has been far more sin than there otherwise would have been. So why did he make that choice? Quite apart from the justice of it, it simply does not strike me as very sensible.
Furthermore, consider this. My understanding is that vastly more embryos are created than are ever born (because they die naturally; I am not talking about abortion), much less make it to the age of reason, much less live long enough at the age of reason to commit a mortal sin. Nonetheless, all those embryos, and everyone else who dies unbaptised, is arguably condemned to hell, or at least limbo, because of original sin. The vast majority of the humans who have ever lived never even had a chance to be baptised, much less to use their free will to commit sins. So why did God choose to make original sin a thing, when He could have chosen otherwise? Again, it just does not seem like a sensible decision.
Now, I know that it is possible that unbaptised babies do go to heaven. Yet this raises a further problem. Does this not mean that it would be better to die before reaching the age where it is possible to commit a personal sin? If unbaptised babies go to heaven, then are they not better off, from a salvific perspective, dying before they can risk damnation?
I should make it clear that I accept as a matter of faith everything the Church teaches about original sin and concupiscence. I accept that the Church does not have an infallible teaching on the fate of unbaptised babies. I am playing devil’s advocate here, but I think this is a serious objection which needs an answer. It might be that the only answer is that it is a mystery and that I shall not understand how just and sensible it is until I am dead, but I am hoping there is one I can accept now.
If He had, some people would still have used their free will to sin in human history: but surely far, far fewer. Only four people created without sin have existed in human history, and half of them did not sin. In contrast, every single human being conceived with original sin and concupiscence has sinned. It does seem awfully like God stacked the decks against us.
It is all very well to say we have free will. Yes, regardless of concupiscence, every personal sin I commit is my own fault. However, if God had decided not to invent original sin and concupiscence, we would not be naturally inclined to sin. Therefore, far fewer people would have used their free will to sin. There would have been far less evil in the world to offend God. From God’s own perspective, if he had decided that original sin and concupiscence were not transmitted by decent, far fewer people would have disobeyed him. Because of God’s choice, there has been far more sin than there otherwise would have been. So why did he make that choice? Quite apart from the justice of it, it simply does not strike me as very sensible.
Furthermore, consider this. My understanding is that vastly more embryos are created than are ever born (because they die naturally; I am not talking about abortion), much less make it to the age of reason, much less live long enough at the age of reason to commit a mortal sin. Nonetheless, all those embryos, and everyone else who dies unbaptised, is arguably condemned to hell, or at least limbo, because of original sin. The vast majority of the humans who have ever lived never even had a chance to be baptised, much less to use their free will to commit sins. So why did God choose to make original sin a thing, when He could have chosen otherwise? Again, it just does not seem like a sensible decision.
Now, I know that it is possible that unbaptised babies do go to heaven. Yet this raises a further problem. Does this not mean that it would be better to die before reaching the age where it is possible to commit a personal sin? If unbaptised babies go to heaven, then are they not better off, from a salvific perspective, dying before they can risk damnation?
I should make it clear that I accept as a matter of faith everything the Church teaches about original sin and concupiscence. I accept that the Church does not have an infallible teaching on the fate of unbaptised babies. I am playing devil’s advocate here, but I think this is a serious objection which needs an answer. It might be that the only answer is that it is a mystery and that I shall not understand how just and sensible it is until I am dead, but I am hoping there is one I can accept now.
