Ask a Catholic

[Longhorn]

Sure, God COULD have created a species that would not sin...but what freedom would that species have? Remember, God created us in His own image, and God is both free and holy (free from sin). Mankind has free will but now instead of the freedom that was intended, we are actually slaves to sin...we sin because we cannot help but sin. This tendency toward sin is called "concupisence" which is the human appetites or desires which remain disordered due to the original sin of Adam

God is omnipotent. That's a. B is that there doesn't have to be a direct contradiction between free will and propensity towards sin. He could remove whatever instinct he put in us that makes us want to sin and not infringe on our free will in the slightest.

Isn't the tendency to sin invading our free will in the same way the lack of it would, only in the other direction?

We are not a "failed" creation, but we are "fallen" in that mankind separated itself from God. The Church would say it this way:

A creation that is not meant to fall yet falls is a failure. Did you admit that god meant us to fall then? You cannot reconcile those two positions.

]390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Analogies are imperfect, but consider this:

About two hundred and fifty years ago, one of my ancestors, William Carson, got aboard a ship and moved to America. That decision, that change of address, changed EVERYTHING for all of the Carsons who were descended from him. Instead of living in Ireland, ostensibly under the protection of the British crown, William and and all of his progeny would experience life as Americans with all of the ups and downs that being a citizen of a fledgling nation entails. Two centuries later, I'm still living with the consequences of his decision: I talk funny, I drive on the wrong side of the road, and the football that I watch is not the "beautiful game" enjoyed back in the old country.

Similarly, Adam and Eve, whoever they really were, made a conscious choice to disobey God. As a result, they, and all of their progeny, were separated from God and forced to live with the consequences of that decision. Instead of the friendship that God had with Adam, we now know God only in a more distant way because our spirits, that part of us which should naturally be open to God, is not open to Him. For this reason, we need what is known as regeneration or being "born again".

Analogies are only reasserting what you've already said. It's saying the same thing in a different way or more often making a flawed comparison.

Moving to a different country and being punished and on exile are two different things. Your comparison is flawed.

God knew what would happen, yet is angry nevertheless. Wait, doesn't he love us?

You're really a polytheist, Randy. You're worshiping several separate deities under the same name.

First, you do know Gen 1-3 is not literally what happened, right? Just reminding you of what we both agree on.

However, Adam and Eve should have been able to reason that God's commandment regarding the fruit should not be disobeyed. He told them not to do it, and they did it anyway.

Here Randy. Don't click this link.

click me!!

God knew what would happen. God knew his creation. God understood the concept of reverse psychology. After all, he designed all of it.

If he didn't want them to do it, he could have easily prevented them from it in thousands of different ways.

It wasn't MEANT to happen, but because of His foreknowledge of OUR choice, God knew that it would happen, and because of His love, He chose to create us anyway!

Did you really just say love?

He deliberately created us unable to follow his commandments, knowing full well we would not obey them and all chose to punish us for it.

If anything, he did it on a sadistic whim. Love doesn't enter picture.

Now about "group responsibility": All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul". Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I want to highlight the bolded sentence above to make sure you see it. In your question you say that we are "broken, sinful and sick". Well, yes and no. Protestants hold to idea of man's complete corruption. Martin Luther said we are "snow covered dung hills." But that was Luther's error. Catholics would say that we are sick, wounded, but not totally corrupted.

Disgusting. Nobody is born sick and nobody is wounded. That is, until the catholics get to them.

What a sick doctrine.

So, be Catholic!  

No thanks.

As I just explained in the previous paragraph, God does not view this as a personal fault in each one of us; nevertheless, we are stuck with the consequences of our parents choice. I'm an American and not an Irishman!

But this is not punishment. You aren't sick or wounded being American. It's incomparable.

As the foregoing explanations show, God did not CREATE us sick and sinful, He created us perfectly. God saw all that He had created, and it was good. Sickness and sinfulness was the consequence of our choice to separate ourselves from God by choosing our will instead of His.
[quote]

He knew we would do that. He created us to be prone to sin. He designed our psychology to work that way.

He could easily fix it any minute, Randy.

[Quote]Does the physician hurt anyone's feelings when he informs them of cancer in their bodies?

Another deeply flawed comparison.
Do you ever get tired of worthless analogies that do nothing for your point?

The priest is simply explaining why we have an inclination toward sin and why we commit actual sins when he explains the fallen condition we are in.

Of course, baptism is the cure for original sin, and that part of the story must be told, also.

The priest is making shit up. He has no way of knowing anything of what he is saying to be true.

The physician knows about the cancer. He can study cancer. He can demonstrate cancer. He can treat cancer.

The priest believes about sin. He cannot demonstrate it to be true or to have any bearing on reality. He's telling people something he doesn't know.

The technical term for this is lying.

Lying in a way that is an insult to human dignity. It's immoral and sick. Say, wasn't lying on the 'thou shalt not' list?



The lengths you have to go to to defend such an obvious product of human naive fantasies never cease to amaze me. You actually believe all of that tripe. It's breathtaking.