God created Adam with a particular (pure) "Nature". When Adam ate the forbidden fruit in the Heaven, did it alter the nature in any sense? Since before the event, there was no sin, no guilt, no shame. Did the sin change the nature of human response? I am specially interested in the explanation given in Islamic, Christian and Jewish scriptures.
Thanks for your comments. But was that a change in nature due to the "sin" or was it designed at the time of creation of Adam?
In general, Christian theology holds that the Fall resulted in depravity of nature in man. However, there are differences of thinking as to the extent of the sinful nature. Some, for instance Calvinists, believe in total constitutional depravity, while others believe that humans possess the freewill to choose lawful living.
Thanks Domenic. This issue seems to be the same in Islamic understanding as well. The result being some perceive evil to be inherent part of innate nature, resulting in tolerance of evil, while others if pursue the pure nature philosophy aim at returning to the original good nature.
See, please:
Bernard O.P. Mulcahy
Published by Peter Lang Publishing Inc, United States (2011)
"Henri de Lubac and Pure Nature in the 20th Century
... there is ample reason to assume that Christian theology has long been at home with the theory and practice of considering human nature apart from the gifts of grace and without reference to any supernatural telos. In early modern times, however, and in the wake of the upheaval of the Reformations, the Jansenist movement, as we have indicated, came to mistrust scholastic distinctions between human nature in itself and human nature in relation to the life of grace. At issue was the technical notion of pure nature, as well as the Baianist proposition that, before the sin of Ad- am, our first parents lived in graceless existence in which they could, by the exercise of their natural powers alone, merit heaven or hell. In condemning Baianism and Jansenism, the Catholic Church—as de Lubac rightly observes— did not approve any scholastic terminology of pure nature, or even forbid the rejection of such theological language. Henri de Lubac’s dispute with this terminology centres around the historical question of whether notions of pure nature were authentically traditional and Thomistic, and on whether such ideas do or do not contribute to anti-religious secularism. For a further evaluation of de Lubac’s position, three considerations are necessary: first, the acknowledgement of his theological aims; second, his in- terpretation of Thomas Aquinas; and third, the historical context of his thought. The last of these is of the greatest... "
Bernard:
Seems Issue remains unresolved with no evidence but pure speculation. May look for ques from any other pre-biblical faiths like Hinduism etc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology