I believe good.

 

However the nature/nurture (their exposure) influence impacts a person's behavior as does there genetic predisposition.

Big surprise I'm sure, but I subscribe to the Catholic vision for human nature: while man has earthly desires that are sometimes contrary to reason and goodness, man's innate nature is inherently good because it is still a nature created by God and in his own image. We are capable of using free will to act against reason and goodness, but we are not compelled to do so by our nature.

 

I could be wrong but I thought Augustine established the Doctrine of Original Sin. Then again, I have been wrong many times before.

I could be wrong but I thought Augustine established the Doctrine of Original Sin. Then again, I have been wrong many times before.

 

That's what I thought too.

I could be wrong but I thought Augustine established the Doctrine of Original Sin. Then again, I have been wrong many times before.

 

Irenaeus was the first to really define the principle but much of the work was done two centuries later by Augustine, yes. Though it's important to know not all of his work on original sin was adopted by the Catholic Church. Anyway that's all beside the point.

 

The original sin of the first man left a stain on all his descendants, one part of which is what the Catechism calls "concupiscence", which is defined as a desire of the lower appetites contrary to reason. Catholics hold that this concupiscence is the origin of the desire to sin, but holds no sin in itself and cannot harm those who do not give in to it. Man's free will allows the sin, but all men have a nature that is bent toward God due to our being made in his image.

 

I feel like I just typed a bunch of random thoughts and called it an explanation. Sorry if that's the case.

 

In the end, the Catholic Church teaches that all men are innately good due to their being created in the image of God, but that free will combined with the weaknesses passed on to all mankind from the first sin means that we can deviate from that natural goodness if we so desire.

Irenaeus was the first to really define the principle but much of the work was done two centuries later by Augustine, yes. Though it's important to know not all of his work on original sin was adopted by the Catholic Church. Anyway that's all beside the point.

 

The original sin of the first man left a stain on all his descendants, one part of which is what the Catechism calls "concupiscence", which is defined as a desire of the lower appetites contrary to reason. Catholics hold that this concupiscence is the origin of the desire to sin, but holds no sin in itself and cannot harm those who do not give in to it. Man's free will allows the sin, but all men have a nature that is bent toward God due to our being made in his image.

 

I feel like I just typed a bunch of random thoughts and called it an explanation. Sorry if that's the case.

 

In the end, the Catholic Church teaches that all men are innately good due to their being created in the image of God, but that free will combined with the weaknesses passed on to all mankind from the first sin means that we can deviate from that natural goodness if we so desire.

 

Well, I learned something today.

 

I have always been under the impression that Catholicism practiced infant baptism because of original sin.

Well, I learned something today.

 

I have always been under the impression that Catholicism practiced infant baptism because of original sin.

 

Aha. They do. The stain of original sin is washed away in baptism, but the consequences of that first sin remain through concupiscence, which cannot be washed away. "Original sin" is unlike any other sin because it is not a sin that carries with it any guilt. Humanity does not share in Adam's guilt from that sin (it was his alone) but we do share in the consequences. Original sin is not an act, but a state; it is contracted, not committed. It is the absence of perfect holiness and perfect charity that Adam passed on to his descendants after the fall, not a condition of wickedness, but an absence of what had previously been perfection.

Aha. They do. The stain of original sin is washed away in baptism, but the consequences of that first sin remain through concupiscence, which cannot be washed away. "Original sin" is unlike any other sin because it is not a sin that carries with it any guilt. Humanity does not share in Adam's guilt from that sin (it was his alone) but we do share in the consequences. Original sin is not an act, but a state; it is contracted, not committed. It is the absence of perfect holiness and perfect charity that Adam passed on to his descendants after the fall, not a condition of wickedness, but an absence of what had previously been perfection.

 

I have a headache. :lol2:

This is a question that I ponder at least once a week.

 

Are we born with a sinful(evil) nature and only become good through rejection of our ugly ways , repentance, and aligning our inner self with all that is Good(God, if you want to call it) Or is our nature that of goodness(God, if you prefer) but we become bad as we lose sight of who we really are and begin to align ourselves with that which is Bad? We see people that are clearly very, very bad human beings. On the other hand, we see those that emanate an energy of pure goodness.

 

In short, is Man innately Good or Bad?

In your case and your rejection of religion, which I am basing off of previous posts, wouldn't it be neither? What our society views as good or bad is based on long held religious beliefs.

Theologically man is born bad and with free will. That is why we need salvation and the whole universe is set up like it is.

Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind's first parents to the revealed will of God. In the Bible, the first human transgression of God's command is described as the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden resulting in what theology calls the Fall of mankind. The doctrine of original sin holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the Fall such that all of humanity is ethically debilitated, and people are powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by God.

". . . all men, born according to nature, are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without confidence towards God and with concupiscence, and that this original disease or flaw is truly a sin, bringing condemnation and also eternal death to those who are not reborn through baptism and the Holy Spirit" (Article II). - Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530)

Where in the Bible does it say anything about being original sin?

Where in the Bible does it say anything about being original sin?

 

I don't have time to look it up today. I'm about to go somewhere, but I will give it a try next week. Augistine is credited with the doctrine of original sin. Getslow outlined much of the theology already. The only place where we disagree is he says "but that free will combined with the weaknesses passed on to all mankind from the first sin means that we can deviate from that natural goodness if we so desire." and I say every single one of us does desire because of that stain.

I have a headache. :lol2:

 

Now you're talking about Catholic birth control.....

Now you're talking about Catholic birth control.....

 

Very, very well-done! :thumb: :lol2::lol2::lol2:

Now you're talking about Catholic birth control.....

 

Reminds me of that old joke...

 

Husband and wife were getting ready for bed. He was already in bed and when she started to climb in, he handed her two Advil. "What are these for?" the wife asked.

 

"For your headache," he answered.

 

"But I don't have a headache," she replied.

 

"Gotcha!" the husband exclaimed.

I think it all boils down to who or what your influences are.

 

Nature vs Nurture.........can discuss it for days without end!

Neither. Through evolution, certain qualities have been proven to have a reproductive advantage, such as cooperation, honesty, and a few others. So must of us have innate desires to be honest, and to get along, etc. Psychopaths don't. Beyond this, we aren't good or bad, but we are a series of choices. We all choose what we are, and are defined by the choices we make. Which puts me firmly in the "some of both" category.