Thoughts on Original Sin by Tatha Wiley (2002) 3C

Now, let me look at this in terms of nestedness:

In terms of actuality, Augustine focused on acts of moral impotence.

This pattern of moral impotence situates humans as descended from Adam and Eve and thereby sharing the consequences of the Fall.

In terms of possibility, Adam’s transgression potentiates our moral impotence.

Acts of moral impotence(the consequences of Adam’s transgression) defines “concupiscence”.

Con” is Latin for “with”.  “Cupere” is Latin for “to desire”.  “Scence” stands for “the condition of”.  “Acts of moral impotence” situates “this flaw – this spirit – in human nature that allows me to desire the good while at the same time drawing me away to my own gratification”.

Augustine’s concept of Original Sin puts the above discussion into context as:

Original Sin(acts of moral impotence(descent from Adam and Eve))

Original Sin(concupiscence())

Original Sin(acts of moral impotence(a flaw – a spirit – in human nature that allows me to desire the good while at the same time drawing me away to my own gratification)

Only the greatest philosophers can perform such slights of hand.

Through the term “concupiscence”, “descent from Adam and Eve” equaled “a flaw in human nature”.

This suggests the possibility that “concupiscence” may be an “empty term” that stands for “a thing that cannot be contextualized” because it is purely situational.

Does that not sound like the nature of self-gratification?