Is Human Nature Basically Good, Bad Or Neutral?

[Thomist-in-Training]

[quote name='Thomist-in-Training' date='18 August 2009 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1250649799' post='1952371']
Whoa whoa whoa. I appreciate your appreciation of my response, Hassan. But what I said was that it didn't make sense to me, [Firstname R. Lastname]. That doesn't mean there isn't a real answer that makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of things that I didn't understand once that I do now. Likewise, there are other things that will never make sense to me but are still true (calculus, the function of the aorist in Greek, etc).
[/quote]

Ahem. That being said, here is a response from the Catholic Encyclopedia written just for this thread (no, not really, published in 1911). I'll summarize it below for those who skip over long blocks of text.

[quote][b]It is unjust[/b], says another objection, [b]that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race[/b]. This [i]would [/i]have weight [i]if[/i] we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, the [i]very substance of man changed into evil. [/i]

But according to Catholic theology man has [b]not[/b] lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived [size="3"][b]only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right[/b][/size], the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family.

A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants.
It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. [That last] comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God. [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)]. [/quote]

Basically, part of what can make it difficult to understand "Why original sin?" is a misconception of what the results of original sin are in each of us. We didn't even deserve of ourselves to be created, so when we are created, we're already "in the black." God had planned to give great gifts beyond this to mankind and part of them were already given to Adam and Eve. They sinned. He, their Creator and King, chose to take back parts of the super-gifts and to withhold others (some theologians argue--I THINK--that otherwise A. and E. and the rest of us would have lived forever. I THINK). But he didn't OWE us these gifts, ever; it is not as if we are totally crippled by original sin; we still have reason: even if it's clouded, we can get pretty far with it.

[MissyP89]

I know the party line says we're all basically good, and I believe that. Of course, we can go downhill after that, or we have the potential to do great things. For that reason, I chose neutral.

[Apotheoun]

When talking about a human being one must differentiate between [i]what[/i] and [i]who[/i], for God is the source of the former reality, while each person is the source of the latter reality.

In other words, [i]what[/i] we are is good, because God made human nature good, while [i]who[/i] we are is either good or bad, depending upon the activity of our free will.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[sarcasmguy126]

Well, Christians (at least Catholics) believe that everyone is born with the stain of original sin on their soul. Which means that their choices shape them into a "good" or "bad" person. We all have a little bit of badness in us...it just depends on the path we choose, and also whether or not we follow Christ.

Am I right?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='sarcasmguy126' date='19 August 2009 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1250715383' post='1952814']
Well, Christians (at least Catholics) believe that everyone is born with the stain of original sin on their soul. . . . We all have a little bit of badness in us...it just depends on the path we choose, and also whether or not we follow Christ.

Am I right?
[/quote]
Nope, you are not correct. I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not believe that anyone is born with a "stain of sin." The ancestral sin made Adam's descendants mortal, but not by nature sinful.

Sin is personal, not natural, and so there is no inherent "badness" in anyone.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Hassan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='19 August 2009 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1250717415' post='1952849']
Nope, you are not correct. I am an Eastern Catholic and I do not believe that anyone is born with a "stain of sin." The ancestral sin made Adam's descendants mortal, but not by nature sinful.

Sin is personal, not natural, and so there is no inherent "badness" in anyone.
[/quote]


Then why do individuals need baptism? Did Adam?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hassan' date='19 August 2009 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1250734627' post='1953014']
Then why do individuals need baptism?
[/quote]
Baptism is the ordinary means for giving a person the divine energy that is necessary throughout the process of salvation. The Church is bound by the holy mysteries, but God is not.

[quote name='Hassan' date='19 August 2009 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1250734627' post='1953014']
Did Adam?
[/quote]
Adam was saved without receiving the mystery of baptism.

[Selah]

[quote]Adam was saved without receiving the mystery of baptism. [/quote]

This seems to prove that individuals can be saved without the mystery of Baptism since Adam and Dismas were. SO why would one need it then?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Selah' date='31 August 2009 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1251753385' post='1958998']
This seems to prove that individuals can be saved without the mystery of Baptism since Adam and Dismas were. SO why would one need it then?
[/quote]
Adam lived before the sacramental dispensation inaugurated by the incarnation and paschal mystery of Christ, and the Good Thief also died prior to the completion of the saving events of the Pascha.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[bonkers]

What about Obama, is he a good person???

[Winchester]

He's the bestest person, ever.

You don't understand the question.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='bonkers' date='01 September 2009 - 08:56 AM' timestamp='1251816993' post='1959386']
What about Obama, is he a good person???
[/quote]
As to his nature he is good, because God made human nature good, but whether or not Obama is a good person is determined by his own free will activity.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[bonkers]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='01 September 2009 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1251824180' post='1959423']
As to his nature he is good, because God made human nature good, but whether or not Obama is a good person is determined by his own free will activity.
[/quote]

Wouldn't it follow that if his nature is good then so would be his actions? What about Hitler, was his nature good? What is your basis for suggesting human nature is good other than god created us that way? Even that is disputable, for example, we all know our nature is to sin, and sin is evil, the opposite of good. If our nature isn't that way, yet we choose freely to sin, then our culpability is increased.

[txdinghysailor]

basic human nature is good cuz God created it. He can't create something sinful.

[Cruce]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='02 September 2009 - 06:43 AM' timestamp='1251888188' post='1959810']
basic human nature is good cuz God created it. He can't create something sinful.
[/quote]
Did God create Satan?