The poverty of viewing man as “fallen” in nature.

I did some reflecting a couple weekends ago, while at the wedding of one of my former community members. Funny how a good beer can make one philosophical but I digress.

Augustine (Saint), Christian fundamentalists, and misanthropes all agree on one thing. Human kind is bad. Augustine was where this view began. Interestingly enough, although he is considered one of the fathers of the Catholic Church (they did canonize him after all,) many of his views have since been considered, well heretical. His views on original sin were fairly warped, and I allege that his view of man kind was as well (not to mention his views on women.) What perturbs me is that his views persist today, particularly in evangelical protestant sects. They believe man comes into being inherently flawed and destined to sin, and that we can do nothing good of our own free will, that our bodies are sinful and that our soul is born mucked up. They fault humanity for all of their flaws, yet give them no credit for the good that they do, this, they would argue, belongs to God. God’s grace is the only thing that allows humanity to do good and achieve greatness.

When we stretch this argument to its logical conclusion this would excuse people from all manner of sin because, after all, we’re only human. Murderers couldn’t help it because they were destined to sin and born to it. I don’t find this facet of this world view nearly as disturbing as the following. It prevents us from expecting greatness from humanity. That is the true poverty inherent in this view.

We fail to expect greatness from mankind because, it is only through God’s will and God’s grace that greatness can be achieved. We stop expecting that and instead expect mankind to fail, we expect the bad and don’t look for the good. We no longer hold mankind accountable for its flaws. Corrupt politicians and judges no longer outrage us because, after all, we’re only human, and besides which they are a dime a dozen, further proof of the failings of humanity and how we can accomplish nothing without God.

I believe that each person has inherent in them a piece of Jesus, a spark of the divine. This believe is shared by many religions and is phrased differently in each, Buddhists would say that the Buddha is in each one of us and we must find it in ourselves to achieve enlightenment, and the Catholic Church believes in the inherent goodness of man as part of the inherent goodness of God’s creation. When we expect the bad from humanity we don’t look for that piece of the divine and so we are no longer able to connect to God through other people.

We should instead, be striving to see this piece of Jesus, Buddha or the divine in each of our brothers and sisters in Christ (our fellow man for you atheists out there.) And this view would have us believe there is none. It allows us to no longer strive for greatness because, either God’s will is that we become great or that we don’t, either outcome requires no effort on our part. It makes things to easy.

Finally, if we no longer expect greatness and goodness, it will no longer be present. When we stop looking for it we are no longer able to see it. We can no longer see it in ourselves or in our fellow man. When that happens, we no longer expect it. When that happens, we are no longer capable of true goodness or true greatness. THAT is the poverty of this view of humanity. We lose our capacity to become better than what we are.

Color me Pelagian if you will for believing this, but I believe that humanity is capable of greatness. I believe in divine grace as well, but I don’t believe that it is necessary to become better than what we are. God gave us free will to do that and expects us to use it. God gave us free will and expects us to use it to better ourselves and help our fellow man.

So what if I'm not a fundamentalist Christian but I am a misanthrope?

I'd still argue the same paucity applies to your view of humanity as applies to the fundamentalist christians. That by ceasing to look for the good in people and the greatness they are capable of, you cease to expect it and eventually cease being it yourself.

Boru, Augustine was not the first Christian to present to lay out plainly the fallen nature of humanity. Paul was, and he was quoting the Old Testament.

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better{b}? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."{c}

Romans 3:9 Or worse
Romans 3:12 Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20

Furthermore, Paul deals, later in Romans, with the exact objections that you raise. Indeed, many in Paul's own time came to the conclusion that because we are by our very nature sinful, and God's grace covers all sin, then the more we sin the more grace we will receive. Paul admonishes this viewpoint as ridiculous, pointing out that being saved through Christ's death also entails living out Christ's life. We are saved by our faith, but true faith entails good works.

The fact that we are born destined to sin does not alleviate our responsibility for our actions. Even if you don't believe in predestination, being sinful by nature does not make specific sinful actions of yours justified or excusable. It is true that we can never fully be free from our sinful nature in this life, but striving to be free from sin is still a very noble goal. Simply because we will always sin does not mean that we should not do good, nor does it mean that our good acts are worthless. Rather, it means that the good that we do do is not our own but is the goodness of God shining through us. You are right when you say that in Christian theology, we do not recognize the good in people and the greatness they are capable of -- rather we recognize the goodness of God and the greatness that he is capable of through us, flawed and broken creatures that we may be. This is the spark of the divine that you speak of, but the emphasis is changed: it is not we who are doing good, but God through us. Humans are sinful, but God is sinless. We recognize the sinful nature of humanity, but this does not keep us from recognizing the greatness of God, which frequently manifests itself through the actions of flawed human beings. Paradoxically, through becoming completely humble and recognizing that any good that we do is merely God working through us that we do become good, in some small way, and if only for a moment, ourselves. This idea is dealt with very well by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Christianity is hardly a cynical religion. We believe that in the end good will triumph over evil, and that the Earth will become perfect and sinless. This is one of the core beliefs of Christianity: that good is ultimately more powerful than evil and that good eventually will triumph. However, we also realize that we are by nature flawed and sinful creatures, and that we will never fully attain perfection in this life. Rather than making us complacent and cynical, this makes us humble and forgiving. We do not judge others for their sins because we are but mere sinners ourselves, and we do not hold ourselves up as morally superior because we are not.

Of course, I am speaking in ideal terms here: I realize that many Christians are neither forgiving nor humble, but the actions of those who claim to be Christians should not necessarily be reflective on what Christianity is really about. As a matter of fact, in my experience it is usually Christians who insist that some people are really bad, and some people are really good (despite this going against, in my opinion, Scriptural teaching) who are hate-filled and judgmental. I am certain that there are Christians and non-Christians alike who, because of their cynical view of humanity, fall into the dangers you point out, but this is not the logical conclusion of the Christian understanding of the sinful nature of man.

True, however, he's the one that popularized it and the concept of infant baptism. I was going after him because I'm Catholic and he's the most visible Catholic proponent of this view.

While I agree with you that as a Christian I don't want those who profess with their lips but deny with their life to be reflective of what Christianity is about. But that doesn't deny the fact that because they claim to be Christian and people hear them, it reflects upon Christianity, quite poorly. Infact someone slightly famous, whose name I currently forget, said it best "The biggest cause of disbelief in God is those Christians who profess with their lips but deny God through their actions." Actions speak louder than words Nevin and always will.

Perhaps it isn't the logical conclusion of Christian understanding of man, but it is still one that I hear a lot. I wonder a lot at the lack of moral outrage among Chrisitians in this country that so much is wrong with our "Christian society" and in my reflections I keep coming back to this as the root cause, which is why I would prefer to confront this view and those who hold it and at least challenge them to hold their fellow men, particularly those in power accountable to taking care of the least of their brothers and sisters in Christ. Otherwise we don't deserve (and I argue a lot with those who claim America is blessed by God because I feel the crack fairy has "blessed" them with a visit or they just don't see what I feel is painfully obvious) to be called a Christian Nation.

I fail to see how God could create something that is inherently flawed and destined to sin. We both agree that God is good. What I will grant you is that through humanity's actions sin has entered the world, and I feel the world corrupts us and can make it hard to recognize both God and the goodness of God.

Regarding your scriptural quotations you forget you're arguing with a Catholic ;)

That being said I've found I tend to know scripture a bit better than my fellow Catholics, but I'm a bit pressed for time today. I'll write something regarding tha tlater.

Lemme see..

Okay, it is a belief of mine that humankind is a hopeless race. I believe that we are incapable of world peace (Though peace on Earth can be accomplished... Question me on this, if you must, but you won't like it). Hell, it is impossible to keep total peace between two individuals, let alone 6 billion.

Obviously, though, i'm judging the human race as a whole. There are individuals that i could say do things that prove the race has it's good qualities.

This is where my actual point comes in. These good qualities come through a person no matter what religion they are. Christian, Buddhist, Atheist. Doesn't matter. And just because a Christian fund raiser is more well-known then, say, the Atheist who buys a little girl who dropped her ice cream another cone, doesn't mean that what the Atheist did was not a good deed. But the Atheist did NOT have God on his side, did he? He had NO God to help him. Yet he found it in himself to give the child an ice cream.

My example is a bit... odd. But i don't think it's a bad one

Of course. Simply put, if you're going to say you should do good, and then do nothing, how can you be right? That statement is nothing more and nothing less then saying a simple word in another way. Hypocrisy.

Ah, hypocrisy.

Not being a devout Christian, this is the aspect that helps explain why. And yes, it is difficult to be trustful of a human race after having been in retail and customer service for so long. So I too am a misanthrope.

Yet there always comes a time when I'm delightfully surprised to see something rare. That this person comes along and acts or speaks in a manner that shows real goodness inside of them. It is usually people that are nurses or teachers, people that are very giving and forgiving.

So the times of where I wonder if humankind should or shouldn't be destroyed are balanced with such memories of people. Even then, those that I feel are failing doesn't make it any easier for me NOT to emphatize with the pain and agony that goes along with large-scale disasters or unrest (like in the French riots). I can even feel for a prisoner that has committed terrible sins, for their still human and still might have feelings. Too bad there is still a tendancy to feel more sadness at the thought of animals dying, since they aren't consciously evil or bad.

And to hear people denounce others for things they too had done at one time, well it's sickening. Just because a person learned from their mistakes months or years later, they feel everyone else is just evil or stupid for not IMMEDIATELY agreeing it's wrong too.

End of the world on Dec 12th, 2012? Could be. People going to start pointing fingers at who will or won't be left around? If they do point, they'd probably be around too. Believing or not believing in Jesus may not be the critical point. Which religion a person follows may not be it either. But I can rest assured that if there are those left behind, the hypocrites will be here to keep me company while I grin about it.

I would disagree with the notion that it is impossible for humanity to be "humane" to one another without the aid of some divine being. I would also disagree with the idea that it is hopeless to try, to strive towards that goal.

I consider myself an real-idealist in this manner. I believe that within humanity, humans are basiclly good, and can, accordingly, end this crap that we do to one another. And I think that we will, given enough time to work at it (or kill enough of each other off until we have to work together). The thing is, I do think that it isn't the final outcome of it all that is the most important point, it is rather the road that we take towards that outcome, towards what we should end up being. And if enough of us do that and don't just "give up", I think we can see major strides being taken towards an end that is good.

When the human race has a common enemy, then we tend to work toward common goals and for the greater good. Nature is a good example. When a tsunami or hurricane strikes, causing various problems, it brings out the best and worst in people. Perhaps that is the one of the most basic reasons that religion exists and has evolved... that there is a devil we all share as a common enemy. I know the rallying cry against evil is used to unite a people or race.

If we face a situation of impending doom, like a nuclear holocaust or another ice age; it will again raise the level of cooperation for the survivals to be considered more than just humane.

From the Catholic point of view, there are two things that need to be emphasized that have not been. While you emphasize Augustine as the dominant mode of thinking, there is also in Catholicism the idea of 1. Humans as co-creators and 2. the Church as the Body of Christ.

If we co-create in this world (co-create our lives, co-create new lives, co-create God's kingdom), and if we do this in communion with God as the Body of Christ, well then we ARE responsible--both for all the sin and for all the triumph. But we are not responsible alone. We rise and fall together as one. Our failing is God's failing (is not Jesus dying on the cross the ultimate divine failure?). Our rising is God's rising.