Original Sin?

April 18th, 2014 at 12:00:43 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Nareed
Actually Chrsitianity either found or developed a rather ingenious way of turning human nature against itself. .


More convenient than ingenious. First you create a
problem and magically find a solution for it. Been
going on forever..
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 18th, 2014 at 1:41:52 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Nareed
But there's hope. See, until rather recently life was largely, to borrow a quote, nasty, brutish and short. it still is in many places, but not in the West. Under such circumstances it makes sense to be told to endure suffering and privation in order to achieve salvation. In the modern Western world, though, where life is pleasant, civilized and long, things have been changing for a rather long while.


In my experience the deepest despair and sadness that exists in the world is by far found in the modern, pleasant, wealthy, "civilized", and long lives of the Western world.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
April 18th, 2014 at 3:24:28 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
In my experience the deepest despair and sadness that exists in the world is by far found in the modern, pleasant, wealthy, "civilized", and long lives of the Western world.


Which pales in comparison to the despair people
lived with for millennia, watching half their children
die before the age of 5, their friends dying of
infectious disease, and they themselves having a
lifespan of 45 years if they were lucky. I'll take
modern 'despair' any day. There will always be unhappy
people, so what. It's called life.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 22nd, 2014 at 6:26:56 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Catholic Encyclopedia

Nature of sin
Since sin is a moral evil, it is necessary in the first place to determine what is meant by evil, and in particular by moral evil. Evil is defined by St. Thomas (De malo, 2:2) as a privation of form or order or due measure. In the physical order a thing is good in proportion as it possesses being. God alone is essentially being, and He alone is essentially and perfectly good. Everything else possesses but a limited being, and, in so far as it possesses being, it is good. When it has its due proportion of form and order and measure it is, in its own order and degree, good. (See GOOD.) Evil implies a deficiency in perfection, hence it cannot exist in God who is essentially and by nature good; it is found only in finite beings which, because of their origin from nothing, are subject to the privation of form or order or measure due them, and, through the opposition they encounter, are liable to an increase or decrease of the perfection they have: "for evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among human beings at least, the suffering in which life abounds" (see EVIL).

According to the nature of the perfection which it limits, evil is metaphysical, physical, or moral. Metaphysical evil is not evil properly so called; it is but the negation of a greater good, or the limitation of finite beings by other finite beings. Physical evil deprives the subject affected by it of some natural good, and is adverse to the well-being of the subject, as pain and suffering. Moral evil is found only in intelligent beings; it deprives them of some moral good. Here we have to deal with moral evil only. This may be defined as a privation of conformity to right reason and to the law of God. Since the morality of a human act consists in its agreement or non-agreement with right reason and the eternal law, an act is good or evil in the moral order according as it involves this agreement or non-agreement. When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results.

Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:89:2; "De malo", 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end.

In every sin a privation of due order or conformity to the moral law is found, but sin is not a pure, or entire privation of all moral good (St. Thomas, "De malo", 2:9; I-II:73:2). There is a twofold privation; one entire which leaves nothing of its opposite, as for instance, darkness which leaves no light; another, not entire, which leaves something of the good to which it is opposed, as for instance, disease which does not entirely destroy the even balance of the bodily functions necessary for health. A pure or entire privation of good could occur in a moral act only on the supposition that the will could incline to evil as such for an object. This is impossible because evil as such is not contained within the scope of the adequate object of the will, which is good. The sinner's intention terminates at some object in which there is a participation of God's goodness, and this object is directly intended by him. The privation of due order, or the deformity, is not directly intended, but is accepted in as much as the sinner's desire tends to an object in which this want of conformity is involved, so that sin is not a pure privation, but a human act deprived of its due rectitude. From the defect arises the evil of the act, from the fact that it is voluntary, its imputability.


Paco quoted this in another thread and I thought we should bring it here to discuss it. A couple of things that I took from reading it were:

- Sin is just a word used to describe our deliberate refusal to obey right reason. I think this describes why sin is often irrational and that when we spend some time in reflection we often think *facepalm* why did I do that? We let emotions or passions or the lower instincts get the better of us and we do something against what reason, if we really thought about it, would have us do.

- We always choose good. Sometimes we choose a good that deformed because it is not in accord with right reason, but nevertheless we do intentionally choose evil. Part of this hearkens back to the beginning of the article talking about evil as a privation of good. We can't choose to do evil because there is nothing to evil, it is absence of light or goodness. Even in our most depraved acts there is a sick and deformed desire towards good. The further away an act is from right reason and the law of God the more evil it is and the more we willingly choose this action and desire it the more guilty we are for it.

Anyway just a couple of thoughts, thanks as always Paco!
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 22nd, 2014 at 7:09:20 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
Sin is just a word used to describe our deliberate refusal to obey right reason.


Who's 'right reason'. And if that's sin, how is a baby
born into it. Obviously the concept of sin is far
more reaching than 'just a word' to describe a behavior.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 22nd, 2014 at 8:59:36 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Evenbob
Obviously the concept of sin is far
more reaching than 'just a word' to describe a behavior.


truer words you have never spoken, thank you.

In regards to the question of whose right reason? It is our right reason. Even though it does not seem like it at times your reason is no different than mine or anyone else's for that matter. Logic and reason are universals shared by humanity as a whole.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 22nd, 2014 at 9:03:28 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
Logic and reason are universals shared by humanity as a whole.


But sin is not. Sin was concocted to control people
in a religion. In this case, the Jewish people. Sin
does not exist outside of our minds, how could it.
Just because you conceive of something, that
doesn't mean it exists.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 23rd, 2014 at 8:06:27 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Sin was not concocted or invented it has always been. It is as real as the concrete things you do wrong and feel bad about.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
May 23rd, 2014 at 1:03:55 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
Sin was not concocted or invented it has always been. .


I've been having this silly argument since
before you were born. What you mean is,
you hope it's 'always been'. Cause you sure
can't prove it exists at all, let alone prove
it's always been.

That's why the missionaries had such a tough
time. The concept of sin is so foreign, so
ridiculous, you'd have an easier time convincing
natives Santa Claus is real. At least he makes
sense, and has a purpose. Sin has no purpose
except to enslave the gullible.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
May 23rd, 2014 at 3:17:16 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
I'm begging you, how can I prove it to you?

The missionaries had an easy time of converting so many people precisely because EVERYONE is familiar with the concept of sin all too well. We all fall short of even our own standards and ideas. We all make mistakes and feel bad about it. We all wish we could love ourselves and be loved by others and God despite our shortcomings. This is what the Good News of Jesus Christ is all about, freedom from the guilt of sin. The only people who are enslaved are those who stick their head in the sand and think there is no sin. The Christian missionaries came with the gift of freedom and the understanding of the human condition that made sense.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (