The stain of Original Sin

[fhansen]

Two old men are arguing over politics or religion. At some point one seems to be winning and this only serves to make the other dig in his heels and defend his position all the harder. Something has shifted in the “discussion”. Now the two are no longer defending the truth as they see it-they’re defending themselves.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I doubt it. Why is it that we prefer to be right? Not just to be in the right but to actually associate with righteousness to such a degree that we could be shattered emotionally if proven to be wrong? It seems that we have a need to not only know we’re thinking and conducting our lives in the right way, which makes sense (and also lends credence to the idea that humans are moral beings), but also to be, in some way, ontologically right.

To me this is an oddity, a disorder so to speak, something which should not be. The preference for being right, in spite of the truth of the matter, has the potential to create all kinds of havoc in the world and I’d postulate that this self-righteous characteristic of man is responsible for all moral evil (sin) in the world.

For myself, this is a central aspect of Original Sin, the doctrine which seeks to explain the presence of evil. It’s one way of describing or identifying the “stain” of OS. Any comments?

"This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections."
– Saint Augustine

 

[antroji]

This is an exceptionally intelligent, important, and useful question. I will take some time to give it fair consideration and repy soon. I’m surprised that there have been no takers, given the disproportionate number fo views!!!

 

[grannymh]

Basic Catholic teaching **regarding Adam & Original Sin **is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»

 

[colmcille1]

Hi there,
It is indeed an excellent thread you have posted! My knowledge of the phrase Original Sin means we are attracted to its repetition. Your illustrative story of two old men bickering is good. We have a propensity, through our selfishness, to repeat actions(in this case blind arguing) and the more we do it, the more we become enmeshed in the cycle of sin.
Your post has furnished me with some serious food for thought. Thank you.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[grannymh]

Hi there,
It is indeed an excellent thread you have posted! My knowledge of the phrase Original Sin means we are attracted to its repetition. Your illustrative story of two old men bickering is good. We have a propensity, through our selfishness, to repeat actions(in this case blind arguing) and the more we do it, the more we become enmeshed in the cycle of sin.
Your post has furnished me with some serious food for thought. Thank you.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

May I respectfully direct you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, linked above in post 3. What you are talking about Original Sin means we are attracted to its repetition] is personal sin, yours and mine. While we share the effects of Original Sin, this sin was only Adam’s.

 

[grannymh]

For myself, this is a central aspect of Original Sin, the doctrine which seeks to explain the presence of evil. It’s one way of describing or identifying the “stain” of OS. Any comments?

**“This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections.” **
– Saint Augustine

While the effects of Adam’s sin brought sin into the world, the central aspect of Original Sin is Adam who had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. Adam, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. Abusing his freedom, Adam disobeyed God’s command.
Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act he scorned his Creator.

The tragic consequence of this first disobedience was that Adam and Eve immediately lost the grace of original holiness. It is their state of deprivation of original holiness and justice which human nature has contracted. Yet, and this is important, human nature was not totally corrupted. Humans cannot be considered totally depraved.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is worthy of profound respect.

 

[fhansen]

While the effects of Adam’s sin brought sin into the world, the central aspect of Original Sin is Adam who had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. Adam, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart. Abusing his freedom, Adam disobeyed God’s command.
Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act he scorned his Creator.

The tragic consequence of this first disobedience was that Adam and Eve immediately lost the grace of original holiness. It is their state of deprivation of original holiness and justice which human nature has contracted. Yet, and this is important, human nature was not totally corrupted. Humans cannot be considered totally depraved.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is worthy of profound respect.

Yes, and I believe every word the CCC says on it. But if I thought that those teachings were exhaustive, or couldn’t be explained more fully or more clearly, then I think I’d be guilty of short-sightedness. What does it mean for a human to be just or holy? What does it mean to be lost? What are the identifying marks of OS on us? How do we show an unbelieving world that the doctrine of OS is valid? That one teaching alone is core to making sense out of the rest.

Many explain evil as an illusion-a matter of perspective-or self-righteousness or shame or sin in general as necessarily evolved traits, or simply take them for granted as normal characteristics of mankind.

How is fallen man different? How do I recognize OS in myself or others? It becomes clearer to me every single day that I have to deal with people-which, of course is every single day -or every time I read the newspaper-that somethin’s out of whack.

 

[antroji]

I am more of the flavor of Fhansen’s line of inquiry than a straight dogmatist. And though directed at another question, I will spare a long quotation and direct anyone interested in this thread to some preliminary comments in posts #107,8 here. Though addressed to a different question, they may very well apply here, at least as material that can broaden the area of consideration regarding the OP’s delightfully intriguing post, as well as introduce some relavent dynamics and ideas.

The reason I am, one might say, of a different flavor than a mainstream dogmatist, is that in my late teens I was blessed with a life changing spiritual experience that left me in a position of impartiality regarding the contents of my mind. If there was a way to duplicate such an unframed experience as I had, and the blessing of perspective I estimate it conferred on me, I would recommend y’all go out and do it now. Then you wold have an experiential referent for some words used both in our Faith and in Middle E. and Eastern terminology. This is solely/soul-ly a bit of information that might explain my somewhat radical view of The Fall, and consequently of “Original Sin.” We could spend days on that topic of experience, as I have spent decades, but lets leave it there for now.

So I’m going to start by thanking Grannymh and Colmcille1 for enacting the role, to different degrees, of precisely one of the arguants in Fhansen’s example. ( I do enjoy your posts, Grannymh!) And the reason for that thanks is that your stances are exemplary of someone’s being defensive of their position. In terms of symbolic logic that makes you exactly identical with anyone of any other faith or belief who does the same thing from the perspective of their position. Identical. But that is what reveals the actual question here at hand.

What we are curious about here, Fhansen and I in our somewhat different but agreeable ways, is that given that the forms of both deposers in the OP are identical, only the content of that form of adversarialism being different, how is one to know, especially if they are one of the parties, which position is that more inclusive of the other, more corresponding to actuality, or, for that matter Real in terms of the IS that constitutes the Substance of existence, namely Soul.

Further, of what relative spiritual significance to this is the universal phenomenon of children taking on the belief systems of their parents and sustaining those for the rest of their lives as if those constituted a 1/1 correspondence with Reality and not an arbitrary parochial mind pattern acquisition?

That is where I will stop for now, as it is getting late here, and a pause will as well allow those interested in an actual conversation about this to go read the cited posts. I’m not being snotty, it is just that I found on several threads on here that triggered emotions too often take the place of clarity and a reply precisely tailored to the actual question at hand.

I will say more later, and thank you for your attention, if you have read this far!

M

 

[grannymh]

Yes, and I believe every word the CCC says on it. But if I thought that those teachings were exhaustive, or couldn’t be explained more fully or more clearly, then I think I’d be guilty of short-sightedness.

Absolutely.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, itself, encourages us to use it as an instrument of learning. What it does is to give us the basic teachings so that we stay on the path of truth. For example, the truth that in our nature we unite the spiritual and material worlds is essential for knowing who we are.

What does it mean for a human to be just or holy? What does it mean to be lost?

Here the Catechism directs us to the life and teachings of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The good news of the Gospels is inexhaustible. The Catechism’s footnotes direct us to the Early Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, Liturgies and Prayers, Saints, Popes, and others, etc.

What are the identifying marks of OS on us? How do we show an unbelieving world that the doctrine of OS is valid? That one teaching alone is core to making sense out of the rest.

While the question – What are the identifying marks of original sin on us? – is excellent, it is also the source of division among Christians and serious errors in ordinary life.

Basically, Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns us back toward God, but the consequences for human nature persist and summon us to spiritual battle.

Many explain evil as an illusion-a matter of perspective-or self-righteousness or shame or sin in general as necessarily evolved traits, or simply take them for granted as normal characteristics of mankind.

This serious error is one of the effects (not marks) of original sin.

How is fallen man different?

This is a loaded question depending on which Christian faith one belongs to. It is a great question which needs to be answered.

How do I recognize OS in myself or others?

Original Sin is a contracted state of the spiritual soul. Thus, it cannot be recognized by our human senses. In the Catholic religion, it is known through Divine Revelation and therefore is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

The state of original sin is removed by Baptism in any of its forms. Since Jesus Christ died for all, and since all of us are called to the one and same destiny which is eternal union with God, Catholicism holds that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery which is the redemption and salvation by Jesus Christ.

What you are referring to are the effects of original sin on human nature.

It becomes clearer to me every single day that I have to deal with people-which, of course is every single day -or every time I read the newspaper-that somethin’s out of whack.

Absolutely.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi there Granny!
Thank you for your excellent post. Well answered and though I am only equipped with the compendium of the Cathecism, I will be refreshing my knowledge now.
Can I ask you: do you think Original Sin is an “issue” with some folks because it is not found in Scripture? I ask this because I have come across this angle of debate with regard to another aspect of Catholic teaching. It’s as if the validity is somehow lessened because it is “merely” a theological phrase.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[fhansen]

What you are referring to are the effects of original sin on human nature.

Yes, and the effects reflect the reality. I guess I could put it another way. How is man unjust? The CC formerly used terms such as “stain” or “dirtiness” of the soul-concepts not used much anymore. But they were attempting to describe a condition that’s out of order with Gods will. What is that “dirtiness” constituted of? What’s the difference between fallen man and the state God created him to have: original justice, original innocence? The effects or consequences of OS in man point to the fact of OS in him, a ‘“sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act’, as the CCC teaches.

What I’m saying is that man’s separation from God, itself, and his continued preference for this condition is the ugliness- the disordered state and offense against God- that repulses Him, a state He knows is destructive for us- and that which is the reason for and comprises our “lostness”. This is the state or disposition Adam & Eve “won” for mankind. This is the state of exile we’re born into. How do we know that the man walking down the street isn’t just? He probably thinks he is-and would be offended-or at least think you’re nuts-if you told him otherwise.

But the primary sin of mankind is that very thing-to presume we’re right while not being right-at least not perfectly-or fully-or adequately. And virtually all moral evil is committed by someone who presumes they’re right at the time the evil’s committed. We have to think we’re right; we can’t sin unless we’ve at least mitigated our culpability, in our own minds, first.

Adam & Eve “stole” the prerogative of determining right and wrong for themselves from God (only because He gave them the freedom to do so), and since then they were self-righteous-they’re righteousness self-defined instead of being a God-based righteousness. This carries over to us all-and is the reason man’s will reigns on earth. And the only way Gods will is done on earth fully is when man “allows” it to be done through him again, by willingly turning back to God, with His help, forfeiting his own righteousness for the valid one that comes from his Maker.

The act of rebelling against the authority of God was a rejection of Him as God. This act caused “faith to die in mans heart”, according to the CCC. Lack of belief in God-the norm for us at birth- is actually another indicator of OS. Mistrust of God, related to losing hope, and conceiving a “distorted image” of Him, are others. It’s still easy for us to conceive of God as distant and angry even though He revealed Himself through Jesus as being humble, patient, kind-revealed Himself as Love-and always having mans’ best interest and ultimate happiness at heart.

Faith, Hope, and, finally and most importantly, Love, are restored to man, we believe, at Baptism initially but then progressively increased through his life-hopefully-as he struggles against his own attraction to sin, that which destroyed man’s relationship with God to begin with. Once man comes to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself, he fulfills the greatest commandment, and sin’s no longer desirable. This-to be perfected in love- is his justification, his holiness.

But meanwhile our presumed righteousness-which maintains within us a distance from God-continues operating within until we’re fully justified. IOW, at any point in time in my life I assume-I probably have to assume-even though I may think I “know” otherwise-that I’m right in the way I presently am. Praise God that He won’t leave us in that condition-with that assumption-if we’re cooperative; His grace is always one step ahead, anticipating our complacency which would have us stay wherever we are.

In any case, we either look at ourselves from an objective perspective and truly recognize basic errors in us-an endeavor which is anathema to many- or we must assume there are naturalistic explanations for whatever behavior and human characteristics exist.

And this is why St Augustine could say, **“This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections.” **

I really didn’t mean to be so wordy. Sorry. And if my ruminations are off-based or imperfect or offer nothing new, I apologize for that also. I just don’t think the answers we have are so pat or satisfying that it’s not interesting and valuable to attempt to take a deeper look.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, and the effects reflect the reality. I guess I could put it another way. How is man unjust? The CC formerly used terms such as “stain” or “dirtiness” of the soul-concepts not used much anymore. But they were attempting to describe a condition that’s out of order with Gods will. What is that “dirtiness” constituted of? What’s the difference between fallen man and the state God created him to have: original justice, original innocence? The effects or consequences of OS in man point to the fact of OS in him, a ‘“sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act’, as the CCC teaches.

What is that saying? One is in the right pew but in the wrong church?
The paragraphs you cited refer to original sin itself. You need to find the paragraphs referring to the effects. The effect of original sin is considered “the triple concupiscence” or just “concupiscence”. CCC references are spread out in paragraphs 374-421. There probably are other references.

 

[grannymh]

What I’m saying is that man’s separation from God, itself, and his continued preference for this condition is the ugliness- the disordered state and offense against God- that repulses Him, a state He knows is destructive for us- and that which is the reason for and comprises our “lostness”. This is the state or disposition Adam & Eve “won” for mankind. This is the state of exile we’re born into. How do we know that the man walking down the street isn’t just? He probably thinks he is-and would be offended-or at least think you’re nuts-if you told him otherwise.

But the primary sin of mankind is that very thing-to presume we’re right while not being right-at least not perfectly-or fully-or adequately. And virtually all moral evil is committed by someone who presumes they’re right at the time the evil’s committed. We have to think we’re right; we can’t sin unless we’ve at least mitigated our culpability, in our own minds, first.

Adam & Eve “stole” the prerogative of determining right and wrong for themselves from God (only because He gave them the freedom to do so), and since then they were self-righteous-they’re righteousness self-defined instead of being a God-based righteousness. This carries over to us all-and is the reason man’s will reigns on earth. And the only way Gods will is done on earth fully is when man “allows” it to be done through him again, by willingly turning back to God, with His help, forfeiting his own righteousness for the valid one that comes from his Maker.

The act of rebelling against the authority of God was a rejection of Him as God. This act caused “faith to die in mans heart”, according to the CCC. Lack of belief in God-the norm for us at birth- is actually another indicator of OS. Mistrust of God, related to losing hope, and conceiving a “distorted image” of Him, are others. It’s still easy for us to conceive of God as distant and angry even though He revealed Himself through Jesus as being humble, patient, kind-revealed Himself as Love-and always having mans’ best interest and ultimate happiness at heart.

Faith, Hope, and, finally and most importantly, Love, are restored to man, we believe, at Baptism initially but then progressively increased through his life-hopefully-as he struggles against his own attraction to sin, that which destroyed man’s relationship with God to begin with. Once man comes to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself, he fulfills the greatest commandment, and sin’s no longer desirable. This-to be perfected in love- is his justification, his holiness.

But meanwhile our presumed righteousness-which maintains within us a distance from God-continues operating within until we’re fully justified. IOW, at any point in time in my life I assume-I probably have to assume-even though I may think I “know” otherwise-that I’m right in the way I presently am. Praise God that He won’t leave us in that condition-with that assumption-if we’re cooperative; His grace is always one step ahead, anticipating our complacency which would have us stay wherever we are.

In any case, we either look at ourselves from an objective perspective and truly recognize basic errors in us-an endeavor which is anathema to many- or we must assume there are naturalistic explanations for whatever behavior and human characteristics exist.

And this is why St Augustine could say, **“This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections.” **

I really didn’t mean to be so wordy. Sorry. And if my ruminations are off-based or imperfect or offer nothing new, I apologize for that also. I just don’t think the answers we have are so pat or satisfying that it’s not interesting and valuable to attempt to take a deeper look.

Please accept my apology for being so brief in my previous post. Need to leave.
The above has a lot of excellent stuff in it. Wish that time wasn’t so unforgiving.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

I am more of the flavor of Fhansen’s line of inquiry than a straight dogmatist. And though directed at another question, I will spare a long quotation and direct anyone interested in this thread to some preliminary comments in posts #107,8 here. Though addressed to a different question, they may very well apply here, at least as material that can broaden the area of consideration regarding the OP’s delightfully intriguing post, as well as introduce some relavent dynamics and ideas.

The reason I am, one might say, of a different flavor than a mainstream dogmatist, is that in my late teens I was blessed with a life changing spiritual experience that left me in a position of impartiality regarding the contents of my mind. If there was a way to duplicate such an unframed experience as I had, and the blessing of perspective I estimate it conferred on me, I would recommend y’all go out and do it now. Then you wold have an experiential referent for some words used both in our Faith and in Middle E. and Eastern terminology. This is solely/soul-ly a bit of information that might explain my somewhat radical view of The Fall, and consequently of “Original Sin.” We could spend days on that topic of experience, as I have spent decades, but lets leave it there for now.

So I’m going to start by thanking Grannymh and Colmcille1 for enacting the role, to different degrees, of precisely one of the arguants in Fhansen’s example. ( I do enjoy your posts, Grannymh!) And the reason for that thanks is that your stances are exemplary of someone’s being defensive of their position. In terms of symbolic logic that makes you exactly identical with anyone of any other faith or belief who does the same thing from the perspective of their position. Identical. But that is what reveals the actual question here at hand.

What we are curious about here, Fhansen and I in our somewhat different but agreeable ways, is that given that the forms of both deposers in the OP are identical, only the content of that form of adversarialism being different, how is one to know, especially if they are one of the parties, which position is that more inclusive of the other, more corresponding to actuality, or, for that matter Real in terms of the IS that constitutes the Substance of existence, namely Soul.

Further, of what relative spiritual significance to this is the universal phenomenon of children taking on the belief systems of their parents and sustaining those for the rest of their lives as if those constituted a 1/1 correspondence with Reality and not an arbitrary parochial mind pattern acquisition?

That is where I will stop for now, as it is getting late here, and a pause will as well allow those interested in an actual conversation about this to go read the cited posts. I’m not being snotty, it is just that I found on several threads on here that triggered emotions too often take the place of clarity and a reply precisely tailored to the actual question at hand.

I will say more later, and thank you for your attention, if you have read this far!

M

I am delighted that you enjoy my posts. Thank you. A bit of enjoyment is important when conversing with someone with a different worldview. Discussion should be a friction between issues and not between personalities.

As to your question how should one know which position corresponds to actuality or is real-- I suppose there are as many answers as people. Personally, I think that the key is that one needs to thoroughly understand both positions, even when one is in the actual discussion. Walk a mile in that person’s moccasins as we would say in the old neighborhood. Then it is up to listener or discussion party to do old fashioned brain work.

As for children taking on the belief systems of their parents, these children are still real people with intellect and will (functions or powers of the spiritual soul). At some point in their lives, they do make a choice even if the choice is not to make a choice regarding a system of beliefs.

I am sure there are instances where children and adults have no choice but to follow the set pattern. My heart goes out to them. Yet, even then, when one learns how to keep one’s mind open while keeping one’s mouth shut, there is an escape from internal conformity. The spiritual soul is beyond chains.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi there fhansen
I’d just like to echo what granny has said. Your posting is an excellent one and it will have me at my books for a while! Yes, it does merit deep discussion and I wish my retained knowledge was up to the task.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

 

[grannymh]

Hi there Granny!
Thank you for your excellent post. Well answered and though I am only equipped with the compendium of the Cathecism, I will be refreshing my knowledge now.
Can I ask you: do you think Original Sin is an “issue” with some folks because it is not found in Scripture? I ask this because I have come across this angle of debate with regard to another aspect of Catholic teaching. It’s as if the validity is somehow lessened because it is “merely” a theological phrase.
I remain your seeking friend,
Colmcille1.

To answer the question: “Can I ask you: do you think Original Sin is an “issue” with some folks because it is not found in Scripture?”

Genesis 1: 27-28 God created man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply”…
Here we have the original parents of humanity.

Genesis 3: 11 Then God asked, “Who told you that you were naked? You have eaten, then, from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat!”
Here is the original, in the meaning of first, sin committed.

Genesis 3: 21 The Lord God therefore banished him from the Garden of Eden …
Here is the original man with his soul in a different state as a result of his original act of scorning His Creator.

There are other references in *Genesis *and in the New Testament where Christ is seen as a New Adam reconciling humanity to God.

I would say that the underlying issue with some folks is in the interpretation of Scripture. This is complicated by the mixture of reality and figurative language in the first chapters of Genesis. I heard a convert say that the reason he joined the Catholic Church was that it had the guts to declare a dogma of faith and stick to it.

There are Catholics who have difficulty understanding a real Adam and a real original sin which wounded our human nature. My heart goes out to them. Church teaching on the beginning of humanity and why human nature is the way it is today is not easy in a world which pushes aside spiritual issues. But Catholicism does make sense. And, most of all, it leads to the presence of Jesus Christ.

Blessings,
granny

Our first parent Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[fhansen]

It’s interesting to me to try to identify behavior or characteristics of mankind that point to the fall/loss of innocence/original sin. Some of these are so much a part of our lives that we easily take them for granted.

We wear clothes without regard to the weather-we seem to have some sort of “knowledge” that wearing them is “right”-to the extent that most never, ever, do otherwise unless we’re either too young to “know better” or we’re trying to make some sort of statement or we’re getting paid for it, etc. In any case I’m not suggesting we change this “strange” behavior-I accept that in this life shame is alive and well for all of us in one way or another and greatly affects the way we think and live and even how we regard the Creator of it all- if we do regard Him. And this is described and obviously considered relevant in the account of the fall in Genesis.

Sin/evil in general should be another indicator of our falleness. We should be able to observe aspects of human behavior or human nature and perceive that something’s not quite right with the “program”; reason doesn’t necessarily hold sway in this world- it’s not “all good”. Aversion to or lack of faith in God is another, though less immediately obvious difference.

The rotten way people treat each other/lack of love.

Some of these may be consequences of OS while yet so intimately or inseparably connected to the sin itself that they reflect the rebellion inherent in it. As I mentioned in the OP, ordinary, run-of-the–mill human self-righteousness, itself, which is related to pride and which, I suggest, even the humblest of us probably has an over-abundance of, is a singularly significant “mark”, IMO –and is more a direct manifestation or echo of the sin our first parents committed; a sin still operative in us.

As has been said, the CCC is full of great teachings on this subject-well worth contemplating. I’ll keep working on my own understanding.

 

[CWBetts]

Two old men are arguing over politics or religion. At some point one seems to be winning and this only serves to make the other dig in his heels and defend his position all the harder. Something has shifted in the “discussion”. Now the two are no longer defending the truth as they see it-they’re defending themselves.

Now maybe it’s just me, but I doubt it. Why is it that we prefer to be right? Not just to be in the right but to actually associate with righteousness to such a degree that we could be shattered emotionally if proven to be wrong? It seems that we have a need to not only know we’re thinking and conducting our lives in the right way, which makes sense (and also lends credence to the idea that humans are moral beings), but also to be, in some way, ontologically right.

To me this is an oddity, a disorder so to speak, something which should not be. The preference for being right, in spite of the truth of the matter, has the potential to create all kinds of havoc in the world and I’d postulate that this self-righteous characteristic of man is responsible for all moral evil (sin) in the world.

For myself, this is a central aspect of Original Sin, the doctrine which seeks to explain the presence of evil. It’s one way of describing or identifying the “stain” of OS. Any comments?

"This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections."
– Saint Augustine

You hit the nail on the head! When Eve took the fruit, why did she take it? the third reason goven is “desiring to be wise.” We want to be right all of the time, and that is a manifestation of pride which goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back to time immemorial.

 

[fhansen]

You hit the nail on the head! When Eve took the fruit, why did she take it? the third reason goven is “desiring to be wise.” We want to be right all of the time, and that is a manifestation of pride which goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back to time immemorial.

Now that is interesting. In her quest for wisdom she rejected God-and His wisdom. And ironically she did need wisdom, but the wisdom she needed was the wisdom to know that His was greater than hers. And that’s the lesson He’s patiently working to get us to learn ever since.

 

[CWBetts]

Now that is interesting. In her quest for wisdom she rejected God-and His wisdom. And ironically she did need wisdom, but the wisdom she needed was the wisdom to know that His was greater than hers. And that’s the lesson He’s patiently working to get us to learn ever since.

I think it was St. Augustine who linked all sins to the threefold concupiscence. I tend to agree. It is also worthy to note that Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness revoved around the same things.