Tab'le De'Bah-Rye Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Pax domini bretheren. So i was thinking that children can not actually sin, that there just finding the boundaries of love, discovering the truth. They have no concience or are in the process of forming one. I don't believe we are born in the state of sin, though i was leaning towards it for a while untill the holy spirit revealed what i just revealed to me and you. What of ye all, who here believes we are and who here believes we are not and why and why not. Debate! :reaper: :oP God iz Good, God iz Love. Onward christian souls. P.s. And i may be wrong and supposedly somewhere between 21-26 on average our concience is fully formed so an adult doing this testing may actually be sinning and just being a naughty naughty naughty pain in the kneck. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 I believe we are born in the state of sin, but what that means is that we are capable of sin, i.e., inclined to it, to choosing to do our own will instead of God's. I see this all the time in children, no more or less, I think, than in adults. A child who does something selfish is sinning, though s/he may not be aware that it is a sin. Similarly, an adult who has had zero exposure to Christian values and beliefs may commit a sin, but have zero recognition of the fact that it is a sin, or even any concept of any thing called "sin" at all. I think you may be confusing "culpability" with sin itself. We are not culpable for sin when we were not aware that the act was a sin, but the sin is still a sin. And many sins, I believe, we do know to be wrong deep down in our hearts, even without Christian formation. The natural law tells us all that it is wrong to murder, regardless of our a/religious background. I think that consciences are inborn in us. They are basically the "voice of our soul," that part of us most closely connected to God. So although it is certainly possible (and desirable) to "form one's conscience", that does not mean "calling conscience into existence". Conscience already exists in us by virtue of our being made in God's image: It is that "spark of God in us". One forms that spark by nurturing it, listening to it, spending time with it. But it was and is always there, from the moment of our conception until... I don't know when. Death at least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Pax domini bretheren. So i was thinking that children can not actually sin, that there just finding the boundaries of love, discovering the truth. They have no concience or are in the process of forming one. I don't believe we are born in the state of sin, though i was leaning towards it for a while untill the holy spirit revealed what i just revealed to me and you. What of ye all, who here believes we are and who here believes we are not and why and why not. Debate! :reaper: :oP God iz Good, God iz Love. Onward christian souls. P.s. And i may be wrong and supposedly somewhere between 21-26 on average our concience is fully formed so an adult doing this testing may actually be sinning and just being a naughty naughty naughty pain in the kneck. :) I do not agree. Even as a baby I was still subject to the same consequence of death as Adam and Eve received in the Fall. If I was born without original sin I would neither be under this same consequence nor would I have a nature which is ruled by my passions more than by my intellect and will. If I wasn't born in a Fallen state then I would have no need of baptism since my relationship with God's life (sanctifying grace) would have not been damaged. Yet I receive baptism in order to inter into God's life and to sustain this life through the Sacraments. Furthermore even If I was mentally handicapped to the point of never being culpable for my actions my parents would still be responsible for having me baptized. But why? The only logical conclusion is it's because I am born in a state of original sin or as I call it a broken relationship with God. I need baptism in order to be born into a new relationship with God. This is why when we are baptized we are considered born again. Plus if I wasn't born into original sin I would have complete control over my passions, which I do not. Believe me I know I don't. As far as for children and the ability to commit sin, the Church teaches that children are culpable when they reach the age of reason. Typically this is 7 years old; however, it can be earlier or a little later based on the child's ability to reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritasluxmea Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) There's a difference between actual sin and original sin. Everyone is born into a broken world, hence original sin. At some point everyone sins, (unless you're Jesus or Mary or severely disabled), hence actual sin. I went to a protestant bible group and they thought infants were sinful and selfish. You know how babies cry when they're hungry or don't want to share their toys? That's selfish, and they're sinning. Right there. Honestly they thought human beings were so naturally depraved, and it totally warped their idea of sin. I started to wonder if babies could sin for being babies, what about other animals who follow their instincts? Are dogs sinful because they bite another dog who steals its food? Do dogs need a savior too? It was insane. Catholics, fortunately, think human nature is good, just wounded, and babies and animals can't be sinful because they can't be held responsible for their actions. Sure, babies not sharing or animals fighting is not part of God's original plan, it's a part of life now due to original sin. But it's not an actual, real sin. Edited November 11, 2014 by veritasluxmea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Where is Nihil when you need him?! I want a clarification of all this. When a child behaves selfishly, is it not sin, or is it still sin but simply without culpability? NIHIL!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 A child cannot commit personal sin until the age of reason, but before they are baptized they do still carry the mark of original sin. I am not sure I can say much more than that. This is definitely not my forte. We should also keep in mind the difference between concupiscence and original sin, and be careful not to conflate the two. The finer points, again, are rather beyond my competency. I would recommend the Catechism of Trent and the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 A child cannot commit personal sin until the age of reason, but before they are baptized they do still carry the mark of original sin. I am not sure I can say much more than that. This is definitely not my forte. We should also keep in mind the difference between concupiscence and original sin, and be careful not to conflate the two. The finer points, again, are rather beyond my competency. I would recommend the Catechism of Trent and the old Catholic Encyclopedia. So you're saying that a behavior like stealing is not a sin if the person hasn't yet reached the age of reason? In other words, culpability and sin are the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 So you're saying that a behavior like stealing is not a sin if the person hasn't yet reached the age of reason? In other words, culpability and sin are the same? Hm... No, I do not want to say exactly that. I would simply say that a child cannot be culpable for personal sin before the age of reason. I should not say more than that without studying the subject more. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
An Historian Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 The age of reason, incidentally, is entirely subject. What would be a sin to one child may not be a sin to another of the same age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 There's a difference between actual sin and original sin. Everyone is born into a broken world, hence original sin. At some point everyone sins, (unless you're Jesus or Mary or severely disabled), hence actual sin. I went to a protestant bible group and they thought infants were sinful and selfish. You know how babies cry when they're hungry or don't want to share their toys? That's selfish, and they're sinning. Right there. Honestly they thought human beings were so naturally depraved, and it totally warped their idea of sin. I started to wonder if babies could sin for being babies, what about other animals who follow their instincts? Are dogs sinful because they bite another dog who steals its food? Do dogs need a savior too? It was insane. Catholics, fortunately, think human nature is good, just wounded, and babies and animals can't be sinful because they can't be held responsible for their actions. Sure, babies not sharing or animals fighting is not part of God's original plan, it's a part of life now due to original sin. But it's not an actual, real sin. Huh, they must have read their Augustine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Or Calvin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthfinder Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The age of reason, incidentally, is entirely subject. What would be a sin to one child may not be a sin to another of the same age. Correct. Canon Law states the age of reason as seven solely to illustrate the latest possible age of attaining reason. It is acknowledged that children can often tell right from wrong at an earlier age. Even at this, their culpability is suspect, but there actions will still be sinful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Is there not a difference between sinning and being held accountable for that sin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Is there not a difference between sinning and being held accountable for that sin? That's what I want to know. So far, culpability and sin seem conflatable. Which I can't fathom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now