Different views to explain sin’s origin

1. Different views to explain sin’s origin

2. EnumaElish(Babylonian creation myth) Tiamat Marduk Evil is ascribed to gods Two principles of evil: primordial chaos and the conflict among gods Marduk kills Tiamat and her husband Kingu Humans stems from evil – created from the blood of the murdered god Kingu; they discover the presence of pre-existing evil and continue it…

3. Gnosticism Lower gods exist distant from the invisible, transmundane God. Powers of light and powers of darkness (creations of lower gods) engage in battle with each other. The later overcome the former; the former are detained in the realm of darkness… Human spirit finds itself in an evil situation, not through personal fault, but through pre-cosmic events. It stems from the realm of light but now immersed in a fleshly and psychic body (imprisoned); human body & psychic passions – regarded as evil Through “gnosis” humans return to a realm from which they have fallen

4. Manichaeism Syncretistic system: drawing together teachings of Buddham Jesus, Zarathustra, etc. Dualistic: postulates two uncreated principles: evil principle of darkness and good principle of light Places origin of evil and sin outside of human deliberation – evil principle of darkness

5. George W.F. Hegel

6. George W.F. Hegel Ontological approach to the question on evil. Absolute (God) as “subject” (not only substance) goes beyond itself, externalizes itself and enters into determinate beings as their inner structure and necessity. Absolute is involved in the process of the world. The world = self-manifestation of God; He is active in the world, the world is in God. Absolute actualizes itself through all the stages of world history; finds consummation at the end of the development.

7. “Spirit” (Mind) – embodied in finite beings of the universe. Goal of the Spirit’s passage through the world is “self-knowledge.” This implies that the Spirit integrates the whole universe in itself. The “Spirit” is the power of the reconciliation that governs the world and the movement of history. “Idea” (Notion, Concept) is the inner reason (rational necessity) of all reality. Conformity of the rationality of the world to the Spirit means reconciliation.

8. Necessary movement of the Spirit in the particular beings in the world is evil since the particulars are remote (distant) from the universal goal. Cut off from the universals, particulars are in a state of alienation. Original sin = affirmation of the particular; expression of self as different from the universal. Where there is self-centeredness in the existence of the particular form of the Spirit, there is a condition of evil (alienation, separation) Absolute ultimately brings about reconciliation (of all oppositions of Spirit, nature, self, particulars)

9. Evolutionist’s view as reported by the group Primitive struggle of humans to develop their potential and achieve the fulfillment of themselves through the cosmic forces available to them. Different Versions of Interpretations: Condition of sin = the slow and imperfect development of humankind; the natural condition of humans = progress through evolutionary stages, from primitive forms to more complex life forms (instinct of self-preservation, propagation) The conscious and free decision not to cooperate with the process of development. Through ill will (sluggishness, envy, hate, etc.) a person refuses to further the cause of evolution.

10. A phenomenon reaching back to an event in the beginning of humankind resulted from a refusal to proceed to the next stage of evolution, namely, the stage of gracious dialogue with God. A comparison between the law of entropy (the conversion of energy) and various aspects of original sin (guilt, concupiscence, failure). While the total amount of energy is not lost, it can be degraded into simpler forms. Sin, in sum, is the aspect of egotism and disintegration that characterizes humans.

11. Limits: • If we accept these views, it may lead us not to value human persons because we will not reach perfection, the Imitation of Christ. It would neglect the grace of God. • Modern interpretations of sin would have its own concept of sin, basing it in observations and science, this may bring us farther from our faith. We somehow do away with the teachings of the Fathers or of the Church. • The understanding of these interpretations are limited to only few people: theologians, science experts (psychologists…)

12. Evolutionary Interpretation: Summary Humans developed from pre-existing living forms over a long period of time, through trial and error. The condition of sin is actually the slow and imperfect development of humankind (natural condition: thus, sin of nature, not of will). Instincts of self-preservation and propagation bring individuals of the species in conflict for selection of mates, territory, food, etc. This explains pain, suffering even death. Conscious, free decisions (ill will) not to cooperate with the process of evolutionary development. (Flick-Alszeghy) Origin sin = phenomenon resulted from a refusal to proceed to the next stage of evolution – the stage of gracious dialogue with God

13. Teilhard de Chardin

14. Reconciles Spirit and matter, Christian doctrine with norms of evolutionary biology. Universe is in continual development: cosmo-genesis, bio-genesis, Christo-genesis. The evolutionary process is directed toward the Omega Point - Full Christ: communion with God in Christ and in the world. Present condition of the universe – disunity, multiplicity (=principle of evil). Humans embody evil when they strive to stand apart in isolation Teilhard de Chardin

15. Paul Tillich

16. Paul Tillich Develops a theological view of the fall and sin of humans Maintains the distinction between essence and existence in the realm of creation but not in God. The essence is the ideal world; but the world of existence falls short of the ideal world. Human situation is one of estrangement from the essential realm. It participates in the essential realm, but its participation is mixed with distortion. From the beginning, creation is characterized by essence and existence; by an existential actualization of the essential goodness. Actualized creation and estranged existence are identical.

17. Paul Tillich Human are endowed with freedom; but their freedom is exercised within definite limiits. The symbol of the “fall” points to the tragic and universal character of the world, which is marked by a transition from essence to existence.

18. Paul Ricoeur

19. Paul Ricoeur Seeks the origin of evil and corruption in a precondition of human existence His concern: phenomenological description of the free and unfree of human existence; his focus: on the split between the voluntary and involuntary in human life. Discovers a “fault” or “rift” at the very center of the human person. This fault is a division existing in the human person. It is not yet moral corruption and guilt. But it is the locus of evil. Origin of sin? It is the a precondition that exists in the very center of humans. It is their capacity to fail. It is this split that constitutes fallibility.

20. Sociological Interpretation: report by the group • Structures of society influence the way people think and act; Subject to the influence of societal determinants: • Behaviourists’ view: Human Freedom is an illusion (Skinner). • Less Determinist view: society influences but it does NOT extinguish Human Freedom.[Individuals may either accept the action (good or evil) or reject it = subject to human freedom.] • Sociological Interpretation of Sin • Original sin: evil factors which are in the individuals as they live and act in a society. • Explains well a non-voluntary aspect of original sin. • Individuals are influenced externally and internally (thinking and acting) • “proneness to evil” is aggravated by a sphere of sin in society.

21. The Church offers a religious dimension of the family or culture = absorbed by the society. Sociologically, the origin of sin is the reluctance to pass on Christian values to others in one’s social milieu. • Society is the human context in which one is born, lives, and dies. • Society influences a person for good and for evil. • The original sin (origin of sin)= individual’s choice of doing evil in the society. • Reflections: • Society offers good things and bad things. • Human has the capacity to choose and to act. • Evil action happens because we choose to do so. • Our actions affect the society at large.

22. Sociological Interpretation: summary Structures of society influence the way people think and act; individuals – subject to influence of societal determinants. But this doesn’t extinguish freedom. Original sin – viewed as evil factors that bear in upon individuals as they live and act in a society. The evil influence is there whether we choose it or not; we are born in a milieu of sin and failure. Transmission of sin? Power of social transmission: the authority of the social group and the influence of economic profit in justifying the wrong “Proneness (inclination) to evil” is aggravated by a “sphere of sin” in society (sphere of evil)

23. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) • Sin and evil? • It is an internal factor(Innate) • It is Psychological • It Narcissistic • The character of original sin for Freud • Oedipus Complex (desire of the son to possess his mother and to subdue his father) • Inner struggle • Natural tendency in man • Narcissism • Selfishness • Egocentric • Infancy • Conclusion: Freud’s Original sin can be traced through psychology

24. Origin of sin: • An external factor • The society at risk • Factors • The experience of injustice; inequality; exploitation; suppression; alienation • Capitalism (Rich becomes richer… etc) • Technology (Man vs. Machines…etc) • All these external challenges of injustice, exploitation …etc., to men made sin a reality because the victims revolts against their oppressors in other to gain justice. Karl Marx (1818-83)

25. Origin of sin in the human volition • Sin springs from the human heart • Volition is an inner power that stands at the crucial junction of existence • A human person is free inasmuch as he also has an intellect • Oriented towards objects of need which are “self-perfective” actions • A network of relationships should be directed towards the well-being of all so as to minimize impinging conflict of interests • If there is no freedom, there is no morality • Moral evil of any kind ultimately depends on the freedom of the will • Ultimate reason for moral evil is human volition

26. Other attempts towards a renewed understanding of Original sin… • Situationist view • Personalist view

27. The “situationalist” view: • Proponents: Schoonenberg, Rahner • Thought: To be human is to be situated to the world. But this situatedness is sinful in that it is the product of a sinful history. The situationalist’s focus attention on historical and environmental evil. • Strength: Takes the social and historical dimension of sin with due seriousness. • Weakness: Open to the charge of denying an antecedent predisposition to sin inherent in human nature itself.

28. The “personalist” view: • Proponents: Vanneste • Thought: This view is not interested in “origins” and reduces original sin to the factual universality of actual sins: “Every human being de facto sins”. Thus all need redemption by Christ. There is no need to distinguish, analogically, between personal and original sin. • Weakness: It is not easy to reconcile this radically contingent view of sin with either human freedom or that depth dimension of human experience commonly described as pre-personal disposition towards sin.

29. These anthropologies focus on the grace-resistant dimension of the human condition rather than the calamitous sin committed by a specific couple from whom humankind is descended. • They agree that all have sinned since the dawn of history without insisting so much on biological models.

30. Problems common to these anthropologies: • Is the word “sin” to be defined univocally or analogically? • How do we avoid treating sin as a necessary feature in the process of becoming human? • How do we avoid the Pelagian environmentalism while stressing on the notion of a sinful history? • How do we affirm the essential goodness of creation without playing down the dark side of human nature and human history? • How do we relate creation to redemption, nature to culture, and both to Christ?