Ask a Catholic

[Metis]

I don't believe there is one Randy. Something I miss.

[nihilistcat]

The only difference between one dip shit and ten is ... more drool

[Randy Carson]

1. That we're born broken, sinful and sick and need to be saved.

What I'm receding to specifically is the idea of original sin and baptism.

I'm not so much interested in technicalities, but:

~the contradiction between 'god created us' and 'we need to be saved'.

If we are a failed creation, the only one we can blame is the failed creator. The very fact that humans are imperfect speaks against god's alleged perfection.

Is he not capable of creating species that would not sin if he doesn't want us to sin?

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

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

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".

~god set Adam up

Furthermore, if god is omniscient, he already knew Adam would sin. He knew beforehand exactly how it would play out.

What about the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why was it in clear sight, in the center of the garden? Why was it there at all? God not only knew Adam would sin, he must've WANTED him to.

If you say it was meant as a test - god is omniscient. He doesn't need a test. He already knew the result.

Also....tree of knowledge of good and evil.

If going against god is evil, they could not have known that BEFORE eating from the tree. They had no concept of morality before then and they could not understand what sin is.

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.

~The idea of group responsibility

Because of the original sin, we need baptism to be forgiven for something we did not do and could not have done - as well as something that was apparently meant to happen all along.

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!

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.

So, be Catholic!  

God is not forgiving or merciful or even good if he holds the actions of two human beings against all their alleged descendants, who had no part in the crime.

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!

~created sick and commanded to be well

If humans were created as prone to sin, commanding them to go against their nature on pain of eternal torment is not only immoral, it's cruel and sick and denies all notions of benevolence and god's love.

He could have easily created species that didn't feel the urge to sin without denying them free will.

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.

~the moral implications

Mythology aside, let's consider the real world consequences of the idea that we are born sick.

It's a hurtful notion that implies there is something deeply and fundamentally wrong with each and every one of us and that it is our own fault. It teaches that we need to be fixed. It's a psychologically damaging, sick, immoral, baseless idea.

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

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.

[dyresand]

Randy randy randy.... Paul also wrote about how this is no free will and that our actions in life doesn't matter because god has made the choice
before creation on where we are going.

[Longhorn]

Ok. This is going to take a whole lot of deep breathing, temple rubbing and herbal tea to answer. I'll get around to it when I'm not in a foul mood.

[Randy Carson]

Ok. This is going to take a whole lot of deep breathing, temple rubbing and herbal tea to answer. I'll get around to it when I'm not in a foul mood.

That's probably a good idea.

[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.

[Randy Carson]

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?

God didn't put concupisence in us. It is a result of the fall. IOW, that came AFTER we were separated from God...not FROM God.

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.[/quote]

Just because we are fallen, it does not follow that creation is a failure. That's just YOUR take. God's take is that He would send Jesus to enable us to be reconciled to God.

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

Sure. Let's say you have a son, a teenager, and you KNOW he's going to come home drunk from the prom (because he did it last year or whatever). You love him, but you are angry that he comes home drunk.

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

There is only one God.

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.

No worries. I didn't.

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.

Dude, Gen 3 is allegory.

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.

There is no punishment if we accept God's solution to the predicament WE caused by OUR disobedience.

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

What a sick doctrine.

Look, you can either deny that you are a sinner, or you can admit that you need a savior. Denial doesn't solve your problem.

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.

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

No, and this seems to be at the heart of your misunderstanding. God did NOT create us with the propensity to sin.

He could easily fix it any minute, Randy.

He did fix it. At the cross of Christ.

But now, we're down you to claiming that I'm lying, Catholic priests are lying...everyone is lying except those who have the guts to tell you that you are sinner in need of a savior.

Is our discussion over now? Or shall we continue with the other points you asked about?

[Longhorn]

You saying I'm a sinner in need of a savior pretty much ended any discussion there was to be had.

To make it even, I think you're a jerk in need of a book other than the bible.

[TubbyTubby]

You're not THE randy from trailer park boys by any chance are you Randy Bobandy? I'm a big fan.