Original Sin Psychology

When talking about human nature many answers starts appearing depending on who you talk to. With many atheists claiming procreating and survival of oneself are part of human nature, but that should be considered our instincts. As many other species of animals are capable of demonstrating this trait and not considered human nature. The bible describes our nature of being good when God first created Adam in the beginning of genesis 1:31 “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.“ It was not until the fall of man that created sin and lead to the corruption of the original design that God had created. The mystery of original sin by Shuster describes the fall as “What went wrong in the beginning marks everything that follows. Adam’s sin not only

It is amazing that in this book, the topics addressed which for many; perhaps they will not have much sense. Nevertheless, instead for those who for some reason their field of work is what being refers to the integration of psychology with theology, this book becomes an immeasurable help. Although some are not in agreement with the principle of integration of these two sciences, it is interesting what Entwistle mention in his book when he says that: “…if we are to study this mystery as Christian scholars, then we must unapologetically admit that a Christian worldview informs our understanding of persons and our approach to the discipline of psychology.” (Entwistle, 2010, pp. 220-221)

The first position by David G. Myers titled, “A-Levels-of-Explanation View,” who is a psychological scientist who supports that Christian theology and psychology are two very distinct disciplines, but they do share similar goals. Myers defines psychology as,

In Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?, Alvin Plantinga argues that proponents of naturalism, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, tell us that, according to the theory of evolution, neither God nor any other agent has designed or created the living world, and that evolution, therefore, clearly contradicts the central tenant of theistic religion (which Dennett labels “entirely gratuitous fantasy” ). If what these experts say is true and we must understand evolution only in the context of naturalistic, unguided evolution, “then evolutionary theory is deeply incompatible with theistic religion, whether Christian…or Jewish.” However, Plantinga stresses that evolution does not need to be interpreted in this way, and that, because of this, religion does not have to be held in such opposition to science at all. Christian and Jewish doctrines require only that “God intended to create creatures of a certain kind…planned that there be creatures of that kind…and acted in such a way as to accomplish this intention,” and such a claim is clearly consistent with evolutionary theory in that naturalism is not a necessary requirement of the theory itself. In this paper I will explore the positions of the Jewish faith with respect to the question of evolutionary theory, and, more explicitly, will draw comparisons between Judaism and Christianity to investigate whether popular religion is as staunchly opposed to evolutionary theory as Dawkins and Dennett propose. If the work of

An omnibenevolent God created a man with the capacity to sin; as Augustine has addressed, the evil in man resides from his will. Augustine, however, does not address how evil stems also from the human nature of temptation that was a consequence of the original fall from Eden. Augustine touches on this theme when accounting for the origins of his sin, but he never fully declares it. “I loved to excuse my soul,” Augustine begins, “and to accuse something else inside me (I knew not what) but which was not I. But, assuredly, it was I, and it was my impiety that had divided me against myself” (62). Here, Augustine admits to denying his own human nature to sin, and blames it on something beyond his will, such as a result of creation. Bonner,

David Entwistle’s book was published in 2010 and discusses the ongoing challenge of the areas of Psychology and Theology and whether they are at odds with each other. The core idea of the textbook is tossed around initially and poses the question that it may be impossible for theology and psychology to co-exist in the same area because of the nature of both: one is based solely on faith and the other is based on proven truth. The author refers to the ancient cities of Athens and Jerusalem to help the reader to grasp the

This paper will be reviewing the book “Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity: an introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations and models of integration, by David N. Entwistle. As the title states, this book discusses how to integrate psychology and theology. It also dives into to why it is so important to be able to integrate the two. Entwistle explains that just because the two are different does not mean they should be separated and that we have to use both our worldviews. “Weaving together perspectives from psychology and Christian theology can help us understand and appreciate humanity more fully than we could either perspective alone.” (p.3)

David Entwistle’s (2010) book, Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration, opens the reader’s eyes to unexpected possibilities, beginning with the often combative regimes of faith and reason using Tertullian’s symbolism of Athens as the seat of reason and Jerusalem as the seat of faith; which is the basic ongoing battle between science and religion (Entwistle, 2010). What Entwistle addresses is his belief that integration of the disciple of psychology and Christianity is possible, each contributing to the

The book gives readers an in depth look into psychology and theology, paving a way for the two to come together. Entwistle (2010) suggest that the two do not have to be at odds, but rather Psychology and Christianity should be used together; writing, “The interaction of psychology and theology is virtually inevitable

Due to differences in worldview, speculation of the possibility of integration of Christianity and psychology exists. Although these differences seem to cause conflict, or undermine integration between psychology and Christianity, some scientific data can be complimentary to the Christian worldview and provide us with a better understanding of humans as a whole. Some problems can arise when attempting to integrate theology and science, such as some Christians having contempt for secular science or secular science believing the Christian worldview is based on irrational thought. Rather than throwing out a view over differences, the differences can be examined and good aspects of psychology that align with the Biblical truths can be found.

“The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews.” Jewish belief, though derived from the many of the same scriptures, is entirely different from Catholic belief in this aspect. Judaism holds that, “man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted.” It is Jewish belief that, essentially, humans are what they make of themselves and there is no notion of predestination as there is in Catholicism. The idea of original sin was invented by St. Augustine, so it did not come about until well after the establishment of a great deal of Jewish doctrine. This may raise the question as to why humans sin if the reason is not Adam. The dominant Jewish belief as to the reason people sin is, “…man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.” This idea is in line with the Jewish belief that each person has two impulses: one to good and one two evil. The impulses must be kept in balance, but there is no inherently evil aspect to a person and it is possible, though difficult, for a person to go their entire life without sin. Jewish doctrine seems to put more power in the hands of people on both ends of life in that people are not held accountable for the sins of others and there is no savior who will absolve them of their sins; Judaism holds that humans are responsible for their own

It “is not a personal sin, but [the]...fallen state of mankind into which the individual is born, even before he himself sins by a free decision”[388-389, 402-404]. This means that everyone is born with the potential to consciously sin and to turn away from God through free will. Nevertheless, God has not turned away or abandoned us. He gave us another chance by die on the cross to pave the way to our initial destination through the Incarnation, as He “sends us the Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer, who snatches from us the power of sin” [420-421]. By coming down to Earth as a human to serve the punishment for our sin, God has opened up a way to get to heaven through him. This is our primary vocation, to follow in his footsteps by loving others and imitating him as well as to spread the Good News with those outside the faith. The modern world has more of a depressing outlook on life. Believing that we don’t have a future or calling, nor do they believe in original sin. Instead one should make the best of this life by making as much money as can and raising a family before happily retiring in some tropical place, we live, die and that’s the end of it. Of course, this sounds nice, but we are called to do so much more than that as Catholics. Some people are called to more specific vocations

In this dark world, it is not a secret that we all need good news. We need this good news because there is also some very bad news. When God created the world, He created humans with the free will to choose God or to not. They lived in perfect communion with God, the highest good and creator. So the bad news is that even though these first humans were in paradise with God, they chose against Him. They sinned this first sin, called original sin. Because of original sin, sin entered the world and has been here ever since. It is the cause of all evil, but it is much more than that. It causes our separation from God in this life and our damnation in the next. We are fully deserving of eternal punishment in hell for our sins and there is now an irrevocable rift between us and God. Therefore, we need a savior.

The Question of Morality - Mankind was created good, but sin entered the world through Adam according to

     Before Adam and Eve’s decision there was no sin or death, because of their actions we now have to deal with both. This brings up the question of where original sin came from. We know that God cannot create evil, so it did not come from Him. He gave man free will. From this man went against God and therefore created sin. Because of this we know have inherited depravity. We can not