Why does God expect us to act in a way contrary to certain biological inclinations?

[catholic1seeks]

Or, put another way, why does God create humans with certain biological inclinations when these inclinations lead to sin?

Remember that the Fall of man did not so corrupt human nature in a way that added anything extra to our nature; it is not a positive punishment. As I understand, Original Sin puts us in a condition equivalent to what we as humans would have be like all along had God not given our first parents special gifts and graces (integrity, without death, etc.). The biology of Man did not necessarily become corrupt; it had become vulnerable to nature as would naturally happen to any animal in the temporal, finite would we live in.

So then why are we expected to choose a path contrary to the very nature God has given us? One can think of perhaps any sin and also think of a related proneness to it, thanks to certain biological factors. For example, while some people are caught up on the idea of gay persons being biologically-ordered that way (“born this way”), being born gay would just be consistent with what we observe in the world we live in. It would be another inclination that makes one prone to commit a traditionally-defined sin.

To say that Original Sin was more of a Pandora’s Box kind of deal, whereby all the evils, disorders, diseases, etc. originated, definitely seems foreign to scientific understanding (and is not required church teaching).

So with a proper understanding of Original Sin, the question really is: Why does God create people who are naturally inclined to choose against him in various ways?

***This question is not gay-specific, and I am not really getting into that. I am using it as a pertinent example, even though I struggle understanding Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

 

[davidv]

I think your base premise is wrong. God does not expect us to choose a path contrary to the very nature God has given us. The nature God gave us yearns for growth in holiness and reunion with Him in heaven. It is our darkened intellects and weakened wills that pursue counterfeit paths.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think your base premise is wrong. God does not expect us to choose a path contrary to the very nature God has given us. The nature God gave us yearns for growth in holiness and reunion with Him in heaven. It is our darkened intellects and weakened wills that pursue counterfeit paths.

Pretty much this.

Every sin has its start in the longing for something good, even homosexuality. At its root, homosexuality is the desire for a deep, emotional relationship with -someone-. The root of this is our desire to be with God. Unfortunate, due to the effects of original sin, like concupiscence, we have a tendency to desire things which are harmful to us. We take our desires, which should be directed towards God, and focus on things which are against God.

Keep in mind, there is no evidence for a biological genesis to homosexuality. Quite contrary, most evidence supports an emotional / psychological genesis. We see a lack of biological need in other sins people claim are “biological,” such as masturbation, which is biologically unnecessary, and is actually harmful to proper sexual acts; or overeating, or intense rage, etc. None of these things are biologically needs, and all of them are physically harmful.

Put simply, sin is not derived from our God given natures, it is derived from a malformation of those natures; and is never good for us.

 

[Wesrock]

Origin sin disordered our passions, will, and intellect. Adam and Eve (and Mary and Jesus) were created with these things operating harmoniously. The passions were perfectly subjected to the person’s will.

Eating is good because it nourishes our body, but are passion for eating is no longer completely subject to our will, causing us to gluttony.

Sexual desire is good for marriage and for procreation, but now our passions often conflict with our will.

These biological functions are good, not evil. It’s how we use them that can be evil. Adam and Eve also did not originally suffer being separated from God. Original sin created a separation. Our indulgence of these passions is an unconscious attempt to fill the hole this separation has created.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Origin sin disordered our passions, will, and intellect. Adam and Eve (and Mary and Jesus) were created with these things operating harmoniously. The passions were perfectly subjected to the person’s will.

Eating is good because it nourishes our body, but are passion for eating is no longer completely subject to our will, causing us to gluttony.

Sexual desire is good for marriage and for procreation, but now our passions often conflict with our will.

These biological functions are good, not evil. It’s how we use them that can be evil. Adam and Eve also did not originally suffer being separated from God. Original sin created a separation. Our indulgence of these passions is an unconscious attempt to fill the hole this separation has created.

 

[GEddie]

Because our will is corrupted, it is in effect in mutiny. Our human body was intended to be under our mind’s full command.

IIUC.

ICXC NIKA

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

The Fall did corrupt us, we are all marked with original sin which often but not always leads to disorder.

 

[Bradski]

Sexual desire is good for marriage and for procreation…

It’s not required. Why is it part of the design? Wanting children could be a desire, but sex doesn’t have to be. In fact, in a fair proportion of the natural world, it isn’t.

Seems like a faulty design to me…

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The way I see it, the spirit of man is superior to his flesh. In the innocence of Adam & Eve, the flesh was subordinate to the ghost, whereby they could control their bodily desires with ease. This is why they could be naked without shame: they felt no sexual excitement without their consent. They could call forth their sexual urges when it was needed to have children. They also didn’t suffer nor die, but would be assumed into heaven when God so willed it.

With sin, the flesh began to rebel against the spirit because the spirit had fallen away from grace. Thus began the struggle of man against his fleshly desires that are contrary to reason and God’s Law. In God’s original plan had man remained faithful, He would grant the spirit the ability to control the fleshly urges with ease and these urges would be used by man for His will and their natural order. Since man sinned, the deal God made with Adam was broken and thenceforth man had to struggle to not abuse his body as it urged him to do. Coitus is not sinful, but fornication, masturbation, sodomy, &c. are all perversions of it that are contrary to its nature. With it also came disease and death (both corporal & spiritual). These desires are tied into our nature, but due to sin we tend to abuse them by using them outside of the reason God made them.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It’s not required. Why is it part of the design? Wanting children could be a desire, but sex doesn’t have to be. In fact, in a fair proportion of the natural world, it isn’t.

Seems like a faulty design to me…

Marriage = sex = procreation. What kind of design are you talking about?

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

We all have Biological inclinations, we are predisposed to certain traits,
Like Perhaps Smoking, one person in a whole family might not smoke,
Doesn’t enjoy it,while the rest of the family smoke like a Chimney ,
if you have perhaps a Sinful biological inclination ,
Then hopefully you can self analyse and recognise that a Particular trait is wrong,
Then it’s up to you, to make a Self Conscious discission to alter this behaviour ,
You asked why does God expect you to change ,
To act in a way contrary to your biological inclination ?
Well this is where the Challenge lies , God want to help you change that inclination ,
To live an abiding life , in the Faith of Christ. And join him in heaven

 

[Bradski]

Marriage = sex = procreation. What kind of design are you talking about?

The sex and the procreation bit. Sexual reproduction in the whole animal kingdom is governed by the fact that it feels good – there are no creatures that do it because they like the idea of having smaller versions of themselves. They need the fact that it feels good to encourage them to do it. They don’t have the forethought to think about the herd or population densities or available food. It’s breed or die.

If God made us, why did He give us these purely animal instincts? It’s not required. Sex doesn’t need to feel good at all. In fact, if it was a purely mechanical exercise it would solve a hell of a lot of problems.

 

[NovusFidem]

It’s not required. Why is it part of the design? Wanting children could be a desire, but sex doesn’t have to be. In fact, in a fair proportion of the natural world, it isn’t.

Seems like a faulty design to me…

Maybe God is a poet at heart, and He wanted something deeper and more meaningful, more unifying, at the root of parenthood than a simple letter to the Stork

Where you see faulty design, maybe God saw something beautiful.

 

[Bradski]

Maybe God is a poet at heart, and He wanted something deeper and more meaningful, more unifying, at the root of parenthood than a simple letter to the Stork

Where you see faulty design, maybe God saw something beautiful.

Well, I have to say I’m quite happy with the design myself. We are better able to control what we do with it and when than the rest of the animal kingdom, but it is purely an animal instinct. We can’t turn it on or off. Well, maybe a cold shower helps…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The sex and the procreation bit. Sexual reproduction in the whole animal kingdom is governed by the fact that it feels good – there are no creatures that do it because they like the idea of having smaller versions of themselves. They need the fact that it feels good to encourage them to do it. They don’t have the forethought to think about the herd or population densities or available food. It’s breed or die.

If God made us, why did He give us these purely animal instincts? It’s not required. Sex doesn’t need to feel good at all. In fact, if it was a purely mechanical exercise it would solve a hell of a lot of problems.

It is a pretty simple answer, Brad.

The human sexual drive exists for the purpose of procreation. If it was not fun…in a very short time, there would be no animals (including humans). I can think of no other reason God would instill such instincts in man or beast.

 

[Wesrock]

The sex and the procreation bit. Sexual reproduction in the whole animal kingdom is governed by the fact that it feels good – there are no creatures that do it because they like the idea of having smaller versions of themselves. They need the fact that it feels good to encourage them to do it. They don’t have the forethought to think about the herd or population densities or available food. It’s breed or die.

If God made us, why did He give us these purely animal instincts? It’s not required. Sex doesn’t need to feel good at all. In fact, if it was a purely mechanical exercise it would solve a hell of a lot of problems.

A lot of animal sex isn’t pleasurable, but even assuming your point, why shouldn’t the most profound, good, and creative act we do bring us such great physical pleasure? Why shouldn’t this union of flesh between man and woman from which a third person may proceed, which perhaps is the most physical representation of the Trinity, not bring us great joy and pleasure, and perhaps a brief glimpse into (or type of) what it’s like to be within the Trinity?

 

[Bradski]

It is a pretty simple answer, Brad.

The human sexual drive exists for the purpose of procreation. If it was not fun…in a very short time, there would be no animals (including humans). I can think of no other reason God would instill such instincts in man or beast.

Odd thing for a Catholic to say. That if sex didn’t feel great. No-one would be interested in having children.

Maybe you should look at it the other way. You are in effect saying that people only have children because sex feels great. Again, not very Catholic.

But you have hit the nail on the head. for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of time, the only Eason we have sex is because it feels good.

Incidentally, to say that we would all die out isn’t necessarily true. Most fish don’t have sex as we know it. God must have decided they didn’t need all the bells and whistles. But He did for us?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Odd thing for a Catholic to say. That if sex didn’t feel great. No-one would be interested in having children.

Maybe you should look at it the other way. You are in effect saying that people only have children because sex feels great. Again, not very Catholic.

But you have hit the nail on the head. for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of time, the only Eason we have sex is because it feels good.

Incidentally, to say that we would all die out isn’t necessarily true. Most fish don’t have sex as we know it. God must have decided they didn’t need all the bells and whistles. But He did for us?

The pleasure of sex is a gift of God to accompany the participation that man has in His creation, just like the pleasures of food, comfort, music, &c. are a gift of God. Many Catholics would have children whether it felt good or not since God commands them to do so. Non-Catholics would as well since we do have desires to bring forth children.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Odd thing for a Catholic to say. That if sex didn’t feel great. No-one would be interested in having children.

That’s not what I said.

I said that the purpose of sex was procreation.

The fact that it feels good is the reason we like to do it.

Maybe you should look at it the other way. You are in effect saying that people only have children because sex feels great. Again, not very Catholic.

No…I am saying that people have children because they have sex.

But you have hit the nail on the head. for the vast majority of people for the vast majority of time, the only Eason we have sex is because it feels good.

Essentially that is true. And throughout the history of man, some have thwarted the purpose of sex for the sheer pleasure. But that does not change the purpose of sex, which is procreation.

Incidentally, to say that we would all die out isn’t necessarily true. Most fish don’t have sex as we know it.

The fish that does not reproduce…does not exist.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The fish that does not reproduce…does not exist.

I think he was referring to asexual reproduction in which gametes from two individuals are not fused, rather, the single organism has offspring with itself. Like how bacteria do binary fission to have offspring.