About christ paying for our sins to save us from hell.

[ParadigmShifter]

Ah, the age old challenge to prove something does not exist.

A claims X exists.
B denies this.
A challenges B to prove X does not exist.

What could be wrong with that logic I wonder?

EDIT: In other words, why don't you prove to me that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Then once you have cleared that up we can get onto the question of original sin.

 

[The Lombard]

Ah, the age old challenge to prove something does not exist.

A claims X exists.
B denies this.
A challenges B to prove X does not exist.

What could be wrong with that logic I wonder?

EDIT: In other words, why don't you prove to me that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Then once you have cleared that up we can get onto the question of original sin.

Bang on the money. It is a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Ignorance.

The proponent needs to give positive, incontrovertible and logical proof for the existence of Original Sin, not reverse the burden of evidence.

 

[Moonsinger]

I meant that the Genesis account is not the entire Bible, which you seem very keen on.

I had studied the Bible for at least a decade, but I haven't touched it during the last 20 years. If you wish to talk about the entire Bible, that's fine. Although I'm too rushty, but I will try my best to keep up. Anyway, the reason why I was talking about Genesis is because "We were talking about Original Sin" (according to you).

Why yes, Jesus' followers. We are, after all, the Apostolic Church.

I believe in what Jesus said, but I do not care nor believe in what his followers said.

There is no limit on what you can borrow, but you must be prepared for the consequences.

See! I told you...there is a catch. There is always a catch and there is always a limit. Nothing is free!

We were talking about Original Sin. You people seem keen on disbelieving that notion, I challenged you to prove that Original Sin does not exist. Please try to keep up.

Since you are the one who claim that the Original Sin does exist, you are the one who have to provide the prove. For example, if you claim that you have found the cure for cancer, you are the one who need to provide the prove. You can't claim that you have found the cure for cancer and ask me to prove that you didn't. On the other hand, I didn't claim anything; therefore, I don't have to prove anything. Anyway, I challenge you to prove that Original Sin does exist. Please don't say that Genesis said so, because according to you, "Genesis is not the Bible, and vice versa. Not to mention that it is not Historical fact". That was your words, wasn't it?

 

[MayNilad Man]

I had studied the Bible for at least a decade, but I haven't touched it during the last 20 years. If you wish to talk about the entire Bible, that's fine. Although I'm too rushty, but I will try my best to keep up. Anyway, the reason why I was talking about Genesis is because "We were talking about Original Sin" (according to you).

I was referring to your blatant referral to the whole temptation thing, and speaking out as if it were historical fact.

I believe in what Jesus said, but I do not care nor believe in what his followers said.

I believe in what his followers said.

See! I told you...there is a catch. There is always a catch and there is always a limit. Nothing is free!

Forgiveness is free. In the sense that God demands nothing, it is our prerogative to ask for heartfelt forgiveness and acting such a way that we feel we deserve such. Note that it is not God asking for penance, but ourselves. But of course, asking forgiveness means that it is we who take the first step. God wants nothing, demands nothing, save but our love. If he condemns us to hell, it is because we condemned him first.

Since you are the one who claim that the Original Sin does exist, you are the one who have to provide the prove. For example, if you claim that you have found the cure for cancer, you are the one who need to provide the prove. You can't claim that you have found the cure for cancer and ask me to prove that you didn't. On the other hand, I didn't claim anything; therefore, I don't have to prove anything. Anyway, I challenge you to prove that Original Sin does exist. Please don't say that Genesis said so, because according to you, "Genesis is not the Bible, and vice versa. Not to mention that it is not Historical fact". That was your words, wasn't it?

Let's see....
We have examples of Original Sin as a structural sin, a social reality that makes us sin:
The political climate that almost always forces idealists to bend down or be killed by more corrupt colleagues.
The lucrativeness of the drug trade which corrupts impressionable, and desperate, entrepeneurs to go into the business of drug-pushing.
The social structure in some societies that forces children to marry at a very young age, to people they do not know nor feel strongly for.

Examples of Original sin on the personal level, our own propensity to sin that came about due to "Adam.": note that I quoted adam, because current catholic thought believes the genesis account to be an allegory to what really happened, and Adam to be a representation of the first Homo Sapien Sapien
Alcoholism
(not a personal opinion) Homosexuality
Anti-social tendencies.
Our propensity to cruelty.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Missed this

Infinite torture for finite crimes is unjust.

Hell ain't real estate, it's a state of being away from God.

Romans 3 makes plain that is is an impossible standard; what is the point of setting an impossible standard and getting angry with people that, as they were created, are incapable of meeting this impossible standard? It makes as much sense as a potter making a donut shaped "bowl" and getting angry with its inability to hold water. How can it being anything but an act of injustice to punish people for failing to meet an impossible standard?

Just because we can't always live up to it does not mean we should stop. We believe that morals are there to help us lead a fully human life. If it prevents us from doing so, then there is something wrong with that moral system.

So, do you require blood to forgive someone?

I demand recompense. The sins of humanity has caused suffering, both to itslef, and to God who loves us.

... Are you calling me a heretic?

I'm just saying that you are proclaiming as Catholic tahing things that the Catholic Church has proclaimed as false teachings.

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."" - Genesis 3:22

Infinite, unending reprisal for finite crimes is an act of injustice. That the punishment fit the crime is the most basic tenant of justice and the infinite cannot fit the finite. And as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) these alleged crimes are clearly the result of an inherent design flaw, thus in effect being born is portrayed as a crime warranting infinite torture. Describe a greater act of injustice.

We have purgatory. Hell is something that only the worst of the worst go to, which is to say we don't really know who goes into it because as much as sin is a social thing, it also a very personal thing.

Would rape be good and moral if God deemed it so?

Considering that humanity is very much capable of believing it to be so, yes.

Except that Might doesn't make Right.

It doesn't. We follow God because God knows what's best. The whole "ineffable plan" thing.

 

[MayNilad Man]

I simply can't see that interpretation in the text you linked to.

Yeah, now that I look even more deeply into it, I also have a hard time making heads or tails of it.
Catechism: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

That interpretation is one imputed by your link to protestant thinkers but rejected directly by the Catholic Church.

No. Protestants either preach that we are sinners by being born, or that we humans are naturally evil.
What I meant was that we are born with the propensity to sin.

Adam's sin, according to your linked text, led to the 'hereditary stain' of concuspience (i.e. we only think about sex, which is sinful, because of Adam's action) and the withdrawal or 'privation' of grace; that is, God withdrew his protection and contact to all Adam's descendants as a result of Adam's act, and will only re-offer it to those who acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Sin is an abuse of freedom. God withdrew grace because we would've ended up abusing it.

So according to the Catholic Church God withdraws his grace (although Jesus describes it as a condemnation: John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.") from all the descendants of Adam because of Adam's act.

Unless you deny God's omnipotence, it is an arbitrary decision of God's to withdraw grace from all of Adam's descendants and make its reinstatement dependent on belief in the resurrection. It is akin to striking one's infant grandchildren out of one's will because their parent has offended you - somethig a grandparent is entitled to do but hardly a generous or christian act.

It is not. Original sin is also man's propensity to do sin. What God did is akin to putting a child under psychiatric care after being subjected to a very violent daddy. The child, by most accounts at least, would've become like the father, were society not to have intervened to correct his notions of what is Good and Bad.

But the issue is whether that child should feel guilt for his parent's sin - this is different from an awareness of his own propensity to sin - you are muddling up two separate issues.

Guilt because he rocognizes that he has a propensity to sin due to the influence of his parents. Guilt also because we are our brother's keeper, and that we should strive to make amends for the wrong others have done.

To try to form an analogy, if a man - as a result of his upbringing - knows that he may be more likely to beat his partner, it would be moral of him to consider avoiding any long-term relationship, and valid for society to monitor his behaviour. But it would not be moral of society to require him to apologise for his father's behaviour, nor to punish him in advance of any wrong-doing on his part. You are equating the two actions: awareness/scrutiny and guilt/punishment.

God is not punishing us, he is putiing limitations on us. And we are not asking for an apology for another's actions, we are asking that one be aware.

The arguments given by you and by the Catholic Church justifying the morality of the concept of original sin are, IMHO, deeply flawed.

Not to mine understanding. I think it is more of a failure to communicate, there is whole lot more to sin that just personal responsibility.

My understanding of this 'problem of evil' (our resident theologian can problem improve on this) is that it states that it is impossible to rationalise the presence of evil and the suffering of humanity to the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god. The solution is to theorise that humanity has done something so bad as to deserve to suffer, i.e. 'Original Sin'.

Evil comes about due to our free will. God is all powerful and all that, but he restricts that for our freedom. He is all-loving, but he must tolerate sin because it is our choice, and I find it hard to believe that a person can love someone whle at the same time restricting his/her freedom.

The only way to resolve this conundrum and retain the concept of the Abrahamaic God is to deny the immorality of punishing the child for the parent's crimes (which the text tries but IMHO fails to do), or to claim that God's actions do not amount to punishment (which the text does by referring them to a 'withdrawal of grace', flying in the face of Jesus' own quoted words above about the 'condemned').

God denied immortality because the child has become tainted by Adam's sin.

Sometimes I think it is a shame so many undoubtedly intelligent people have wasted so much time trying to rationalise the fundamentally irrational, because they are unable to accept the simple and logical - if slightly frightening - conclusion: God, as defined by the Bible, Koran, etc, simply does not exist.

BFR

That is indeed frightening. Because, as far as I can tell, it has been the basis for much of our values. Not to mention my own personal mantra relies on God's existence: "God is my witness, and my judge, and he shall grant me justice."

 

[Cu Chulainn]

I have a question. In what way does Jesus sacrifice anything in this whole equation? What does he give up? Is god somehow diminished because Jesus died? The reason dying for a cause is considered heroic is that one person gives up everything. Jesus gave up nothing.

 

[Moonsinger]

I believe in what his followers said.

Yes, I see that. If his followers said that man is more superior than woman or the sun is rotating around the earth, do you believe them too?

Forgiveness is free. In the sense that God demands nothing, it is our prerogative to ask for heartfelt forgiveness and acting such a way that we feel we deserve such. Note that it is not God asking for penance, but ourselves. But of course, asking forgiveness means that it is we who take the first step. God wants nothing, demands nothing, save but our love. If he condemns us to hell, it is because we condemned him first.

If forgiveness is free, why his followers keep insisting on confession. Sound like a brain washing technique to me. The first rule to washing brain is to force the subject into total submission (that is for the subject to confess to things that they didn't do or to obey without questioning).

Btw, Jesus has never demanded anyone to confess whatsoever. The whole confession things are cooked by his followers (which by the way are made up of people of fresh and blood just like the rest of us).

Let's see....
We have examples of Original Sin as a structural sin, a social reality that makes us sin:
The political climate that almost always forces idealists to bend down or be killed by more corrupt colleagues.
The lucrativeness of the drug trade which corrupts impressionable, and desperate, entrepeneurs to go into the business of drug-pushing.
The social structure in some societies that forces children to marry at a very young age, to people they do not know nor feel strongly for.

Examples of Original sin on the personal level, our own propensity to sin that came about due to "Adam.": note that I quoted adam, because current catholic thought believes the genesis account to be an allegory to what really happened, and Adam to be a representation of the first Homo Sapien Sapien
Alcoholism
(not a personal opinion) Homosexuality
Anti-social tendencies.
Our propensity to cruelty.

I see absolutely no prove of the Original sin. A valid prove would include the definition of the the Original sin and evidences on why we have them. You have not proven any thing so far. Please think around it. I have to go to work now.

 

[MayNilad Man]

Yes, I see that. If his followers said that man is more superior than woman or the sun is rotating around the earth, do you believe them too?

Without evidence to the contrary, yes. But then, the Church is not so stupid as to a belief an official doctrine without evidence to support it.

If forgiveness is free, why his followers keep insisting on confession. Sound like a brain washing technique to me. The first rule to washing brain is to force the subject into total submission (that is for the subject to confess to things that they didn't do or to obey without questioning).

Because we want to show that we are indeed repentant.

Btw, Jesus has never demanded anyone to confess whatsoever. The whole confession things are cooked by his followers (which by the way are made up of people of fresh and blood just like the rest of us).

Whatever, I am not really up to finding the relevant bible passages.

I see absolutely no prove of the Original sin. A valid prove would include the definition of the the Original sin and evidences on why we have them. You have not proven any thing so far. Please think around it. I have to go to work now.

If I'm not mistaken, I gave the definition a few posts back.

But to entertain you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Original_sin_in_Roman_Catholicism

 

[bigfatron]

No. Protestants either preach that we are sinners by being born, or that we humans are naturally evil.
What I meant was that we are born with the propensity to sin.

I see what you are driving at, the Lutheran doctrine IIRC was that we are irretrievably damned by the act of being born; however I was basing my comment on this part of your text:
"therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v)." This implies that Protestants see the capacity to sin being a feature of Original Sin, which the Catholic Church rejects in that same paragraph.

Sin is an abuse of freedom. God withdrew grace because we would've ended up abusing it.

Why withdraw a gift before it is abused, rather than wait to see if the receipient does actually abuse it? I know which I do to my children...

It is not. Original sin is also man's propensity to do sin. What God did is akin to putting a child under psychiatric care after being subjected to a very violent daddy. The child, by most accounts at least, would've become like the father, were society not to have intervened to correct his notions of what is Good and Bad.

This directly contradicts your linked text which clearly says that Original Sin is not the propensity to sin, but the withdrawal of Grace from humanity as a result of Adam's first sin.

Guilt because he rocognizes that he has a propensity to sin due to the influence of his parents. Guilt also because we are our brother's keeper, and that we should strive to make amends for the wrong others have done.

Knowing we have a propensity to act wrongly should make us watchful and disciplined rather than guilty - the moral act is to avoid wrong action, not to wallow in guilt.
And, if we are expected to make amends for the wrong our ulitiamte ancestor did, should not God - infinitely greater and more powerful - make amends for His own mistakes in allowing Adam to fall rather than expecting us to do so for him?

God is not punishing us, he is putiing limitations on us. And we are not asking for an apology for another's actions, we are asking that one be aware.

You may not think that death, disease, natural disaster are punishment, but since the Church claims that all of these things came into being as a result of the Fall, it sure looks like punishment to me...

Not to mine understanding. I think it is more of a failure to communicate, there is whole lot more to sin that just personal responsibility.

Possibly - since I think it's simply a means of keeping people cowed I haven't studied it that much. However the fact that the whole structure can only be justified by such massively convoluted and complex logic would - I suggest - lead an unbiased observer to apply Occam's razor and reject the lot.

Evil comes about due to our free will. God is all powerful and all that, but he restricts that for our freedom. He is all-loving, but he must tolerate sin because it is our choice, and I find it hard to believe that a person can love someone whle at the same time restricting his/her freedom.

I thought that the Bible makes clear that evil existed before the first sin, but that the sin allowed evil to enter the world. Was not Lucifer evil? Not that it matters much if the alternative option is right. That other option is that evil is simply what we define as very wrong given the moral framework we possess - Catholics spent centuries arguing and believing that slavery was not evil, but we wouldn't agree today. Evil is not a fixed thing, it is mutable. that alone suggests that 'God's law' is a human creation.

God denied immortality because the child has become tainted by Adam's sin.

Not just denied immortality but allowed (caused to be) attributes that harmed, even tortured, humans - if we were immortal before Adam then by definition natural disaster, disease, etc did not exist. Since - according to religionists- all things were created by God, He must have chosen to create them, every disease known to man include the ones where you drown slowly in your boldily fluids or die screaming in agony. Pretty cruel huh, and totally unnecessary.

That is indeed frightening. Because, as far as I can tell, it has been the basis for much of our values. Not to mention my own personal mantra relies on God's existence: "God is my witness, and my judge, and he shall grant me justice."

Scary because it means we have to grow up and stand on our own two feet, instead of leaning on a three thousand year old crutch designed to regulate the lives of nomad shepherds.

I'm not saying the Catholic Church gives you a bad set of rules to live by, but I think you would be wiser to recognise them for the man-made moral construct they really are, and treat them accordingly.

All the best
BFR

 

[bigfatron]

Let's see....
We have examples of Original Sin as a structural sin, a social reality that makes us sin:
The political climate that almost always forces idealists to bend down or be killed by more corrupt colleagues.
The lucrativeness of the drug trade which corrupts impressionable, and desperate, entrepeneurs to go into the business of drug-pushing.
The social structure in some societies that forces children to marry at a very young age, to people they do not know nor feel strongly for.

Examples of Original sin on the personal level, our own propensity to sin that came about due to "Adam.": note that I quoted adam, because current catholic thought believes the genesis account to be an allegory to what really happened, and Adam to be a representation of the first Homo Sapien Sapien
Alcoholism
(not a personal opinion) Homosexuality
Anti-social tendencies.
Our propensity to cruelty.

None of these things provide any evidence whatsoever of 'Original Sin', i.e. the withdrawal of grace from humanity by God (according to your link). They are simply a list of things the Catholic Church considers to be bad.

To prove the concept of Original Sin you must prove either that there existed people at a past time who were immortal and did no wrong (i.e. evidence the withdrawal of grace), or prove that people who die in the faith are genuinely re-admitted by God to his presence.

One resurrected dead person who can be truly validated by science would do the trick, but we are still waiting for them to be found...

Fortunately the Bible makes a few statements about Adam and Eve, where they lived and what happened to them and their descendants, so we have something to test, alebit not precisely. However, none of these biblical pronouncements has proved valid.

There were no two original forebears (DNA analysis places an adam and an eve from whom almost all humans are descended, but they lived tens of thousands of years apart), the world was not created in six days but 4 billion years, the garden of eden did not exist, and there was no global flood.

Moreover the essential elements of the story are similar to the creation myths of many other cultures, yet we (sensibly) don't use them as the basis for our philosophy and world-view.

The only logical conclusion is to reject the whole shebang as a creation myth, fortuitously propagated by being attached to a religious movement that proved highly effective at adapting to change and society's development.
BFR

 

[MayNilad Man]

I think I pretty much muddled up the issue, so at this point, I'll just be doing some damage mitigation.

I see what you are driving at, the Lutheran doctrine IIRC was that we are irretrievably damned by the act of being born; however I was basing my comment on this part of your text:
"therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v)." This implies that Protestants see the capacity to sin being a feature of Original Sin, which the Catholic Church rejects in that same paragraph.

RCC teaches that capacity to sin comes from our freedom. Original Sin made us more susceptible to doing sin.

Why withdraw a gift before it is abused, rather than wait to see if the receipient does actually abuse it? I know which I do to my children...

Hm. Those gifts would pretty much make us demi-gods, so in the interest of the rest of creation...

This directly contradicts your linked text which clearly says that Original Sin is not the propensity to sin, but the withdrawal of Grace from humanity as a result of Adam's first sin.

It's both.

Spoiler :

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

Knowing we have a propensity to act wrongly should make us watchful and disciplined rather than guilty - the moral act is to avoid wrong action, not to wallow in guilt.
And, if we are expected to make amends for the wrong our ulitiamte ancestor did, should not God - infinitely greater and more powerful - make amends for His own mistakes in allowing Adam to fall rather than expecting us to do so for him?

The only way God allowed Adam to fall was by giving him Free Will.

You may not think that death, disease, natural disaster are punishment, but since the Church claims that all of these things came into being as a result of the Fall, it sure looks like punishment to me...

I'm sure they have their reasons, as for me, I do not know them yet.

Possibly - since I think it's simply a means of keeping people cowed I haven't studied it that much. However the fact that the whole structure can only be justified by such massively convoluted and complex logic would - I suggest - lead an unbiased observer to apply Occam's razor and reject the lot.

I don't think so,nearly every official teaching has a huge impact on the Catholic worldview.

I thought that the Bible makes clear that evil existed before the first sin, but that the sin allowed evil to enter the world. Was not Lucifer evil? Not that it matters much if the alternative option is right. That other option is that evil is simply what we define as very wrong given the moral framework we possess - Catholics spent centuries arguing and believing that slavery was not evil, but we wouldn't agree today. Evil is not a fixed thing, it is mutable. that alone suggests that 'God's law' is a human creation.

The Institution of slavery found in the bible is a very much more complex thing thatn the slavery of the early 2oth century. And Evil came from free will, be it ours or Lucifer's

Not just denied immortality but allowed (caused to be) attributes that harmed, even tortured, humans - if we were immortal before Adam then by definition natural disaster, disease, etc did not exist. Since - according to religionists- all things were created by God, He must have chosen to create them, every disease known to man include the ones where you drown slowly in your boldily fluids or die screaming in agony. Pretty cruel huh, and totally unnecessary.

Again, the Genesis account is an allegory, it is most possible that by immortality it means longevity. The Original Sin is also interpreted as the genetic defects we are born with, and all the hullabaloo and weaknesses that come with it.

Scary because it means we have to grow up and stand on our own two feet, instead of leaning on a three thousand year old crutch designed to regulate the lives of nomad shepherds.

For your information, that three-thousand year old crutch is being renewed and updated all the time. Besides, from what I know of human nature, we really do need a crutch.

I'm not saying the Catholic Church gives you a bad set of rules to live by, but I think you would be wiser to recognise them for the man-made moral construct they really are, and treat them accordingly.

All the best
BFR

I do, and so do most thinking Catholics. Not to mention even the hierarchy recognizes such.

 

[MayNilad Man]

None of these things provide any evidence whatsoever of 'Original Sin', i.e. the withdrawal of grace from humanity by God (according to your link). They are simply a list of things the Catholic Church considers to be bad.

According to my link, it is not just withdrawal of grace. In fact, can you point out to me where it says that?

To prove the concept of Original Sin you must prove either that there existed people at a past time who were immortal and did no wrong (i.e. evidence the withdrawal of grace), or prove that people who die in the faith are genuinely re-admitted by God to his presence.

Again, the genesis account is not historical fact, it is an allegory.

One resurrected dead person who can be truly validated by science would do the trick, but we are still waiting for them to be found...

Dead bodies be made of molecules, God could just refashion a body for the spirit to reside in.

Fortunately the Bible makes a few statements about Adam and Eve, where they lived and what happened to them and their descendants, so we have something to test, alebit not precisely. However, none of these biblical pronouncements has proved valid.

Snort. That might work, if the fundamental foundation of the RCC was the Bible,the whole Bible, and only the Bible.

There were no two original forebears (DNA analysis places an adam and an eve from whom almost all humans are descended, but they lived tens of thousands of years apart), the world was not created in six days but 4 billion years, the garden of eden did not exist, and there was no global flood.

Moreover the essential elements of the story are similar to the creation myths of many other cultures, yet we (sensibly) don't use them as the basis for our philosophy and world-view.

Is the message sound?

The only logical conclusion is to reject the whole shebang as a creation myth, fortuitously propagated by being attached to a religious movement that proved highly effective at adapting to change and society's development.
BFR

RCC already rejects it as myth, but we maintain it because it makes such interesting analyses of the human condition.

 

[El_Machinae]

You are absolutely right about that. Catholic has never committed a crime. If they want to burn women alive, they just declare them as witches. As for priests molesting altar boys, it really not a crime, right?

We were talking about Original Sin. You people seem keen on disbelieving that notion, I challenged you to prove that Original Sin does not exist.

I think this was a misunderstanding on Moonsinger's part.

I think I can easily 'prove' that we are not conceived with original sin: please tell me what aspect of "Original Sin" is involved with a teratoma's life cycle. At what stage of its life does a sin become likely or probable?

 

[warpus]

We have purgatory. Hell is something that only the worst of the worst go to, which is to say we don't really know who goes into it because as much as sin is a social thing, it also a very personal thing.

Please provide scripture that backs up the existence of this 'purgatory'.

What I meant was that we are born with the propensity to sin.

Ahh, so original sin isn't an actual sin - it's just a way of saying "we are predisposed to sin".

Well, why didn't you say so right off the bat? A bit deceiving to call it a "sin".

That is indeed frightening. Because, as far as I can tell, it has been the basis for much of our values. Not to mention my own personal mantra relies on God's existence: "God is my witness, and my judge, and he shall grant me justice."

And if you realized/found out that God doesn't exist, you'd be roaming the streets raping and pillaging? Honest question.

I have been reading this debate with much interest, and it just dawned on me that it isn't really a debate. It is more like MayNilad Man explaining Catholic doctorine, without actually debating.

MayNilad Man, the position of the Catholic Church on these matters does not interest me. Your position, does.

 

[bigfatron]

According to my link, it is not just withdrawal of grace. In fact, can you point out to me where it says that?

I've quoted the relevant section in full below:
In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Again, the genesis account is not historical fact, it is an allegory.
RCC already rejects it as myth, but we maintain it because it makes such interesting analyses of the human condition.

But then the Catholic Church acknowledges that the event which supposedly gives rise to Original Sin is a myth, an allegory, which didn't actually happen! How does the doctrine of Original Sin survive denying the existence of its causal event?! Alternatively, what other causal event does it seek to impute in its place?!

As a logical argument this has just descended to the absurd...
BFR

 

[MayNilad Man]

I have been reading this debate with much interest, and it just dawned on me that it isn't really a debate. It is more like MayNilad Man explaining Catholic doctorine, without actually debating.

MayNilad Man, the position of the Catholic Church on these matters does not interest me. Your position, does.

Interestingly, my teacher asked me to start doing the same thing.

Meh, I believe what the Church teaches, except for some issues like abortion, homosexuality and contraception. As far as Orig. Sin is concerned, my opinions, and the Church's, are one and the same, as far as I can tell.

PS: and we call it Original Sin because the name stuck.

 

[MayNilad Man]

I've quoted the relevant section in full below:
... death and original sin as two distinct things ... original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, ... This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

Seems like it's saying that grace was not taken away from us by God, but that we rejected it. And that part on Original Sin and concupiscence, if I have read this http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm right, then concupiscence is our ability to sin, while Original sin is about our predilection to sin.

But then the Catholic Church acknowledges that the event which supposedly gives rise to Original Sin is a myth, an allegory, which didn't actually happen! How does the doctrine of Original Sin survive denying the existence of its causal event?! Alternatively, what other causal event does it seek to impute in its place?!

As a logical argument this has just descended to the absurd...
BFR

It is an allegory because it acts as a representation for the different origins of diff. sins.
Adam could be some caveman who found out about alcohol, liked what he tasted (same way they liked the taste of the Forbidden Fruit), and had more, eventually leading to the development of the gene that causes alcoholics to become addicted to alcohol.

 

[warpus]

Interestingly, my teacher asked me to start doing the same thing.

Meh, I believe what the Church teaches, except for some issues like abortion, homosexuality and contraception. As far as Orig. Sin is concerned, my opinions, and the Church's, are one and the same, as far as I can tell.

PS: and we call it Original Sin because the name stuck.

Fair enough.. but then, you shouldn't have to look to the cathecism and/or scripture, if your opinion is exactly the same as the Church's - If it's the same then you should be able to simply look within yourself, and the Church's position should come out naturally, out of your own thoughts. You should be also able to use some of your own reason, instead of resorting to "this is what the church says".

As for my other question, I am very interested what your response would be

 

[MayNilad Man]

Ah yes, but then, I never bothered memorizing how to elucidate it, and since the Church has so kindly done the work for me...

And if the other question be about purgatorio, it would seem that we see it as a logical extension of our beliefs. If God cannot tolerate unjust people, but those people have shown themselves to be willing to do penance, and if God is merciful, then purgatory, as a process of purification must exist.