Talk:Concupiscence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This article really needs review by a theologically educated Catholic, and a theologically educated Protestant. It could also do with a broader range of sources, some concrete examples, and information on the views of the Eastern Orthodox. User:Tagishsimon 19:37, 18 April 2004

...and when they've finished, could someone please provide a summary in English? :o) I've read it twice and still don't understand it! (Comment from a Protestant reader...) EdJogg 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Unreadable 2 Incomplete 3 Typical Human Response 4 Tendency towards evil, or good? 5 latin concupiscentia

[edit] Unreadable

The article needs a lot of work. It is unreadable in its current form. It looks like a one-sided summary of a debate that some editors have had. patsw 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete

This article makes extremely broad generalizations in reference to "Catholicism" and "Protestantism". For example, my own views on man's sinful nature, which are Arminian, would be much more closely related to the author's definition of the "Catholic" view than to those held by Calvinist Protestants. Furthermore, there are varying interpretations within each subset of Protestantism and, to a lesser extent, Catholicism.

That the Eastern Orthodox, Nestorian and Gnostic views are not mentioned at all is a joke, as is the omission of the Pelagian Controversy. This is a very complex issue and needs to be dealt with as such. --Mike 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article in research for a class, and I'm pretty sure that some statements come directly from my class text, "The Anatomy of the Sacred" by James C. Livingston. If anybody wants to look into that. It's in chapter nine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.9.132 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typical Human Response

It is of no significance where SIN came from or for that matter where it's going!

1 Corinthians 3:4 (King James Version) Public Domain

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

It becomes quite clear; that the preceding remarks are motivated from that carnality and not from the point of enlightenment. Which, I might add, always results in more confusion. The article in question was never meant as a theological dissertation on Catholicism Vs Protestantism. But it does what it was meant to do; and that is to give some insight to other views of what and where SIN came from.

[edit] Tendency towards evil, or good?

According to NewAdvents Catholic encyclopedia it says concupiscence is the innate yearning for good, and because we like a good time therein lies the problem. It's like a beautiful lovesong, at 4AM on a Tuesday, pissed drunk, in the wrong garden.

In its widest acceptation, concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific acceptation, a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason. To understand how the sensuous and the rational appetite can be opposed, it should be borne in mind that their natural objects are altogether different. The object of the former is the gratification of the senses; the object of the latter is thegood of the entire human nature and consists in the subordination of reason to God, its supreme good and ultimate end. But the lower appetite is of itself unrestrained, so as to pursue sensuous gratifications independently of the understanding and without regard to thegood of the higher faculties. Hence desires contrary to the real good and order of reason may, and often do, rise in it, previous to the attention of the mind, and once risen, dispose the bodily organs to the pursuit and solicit the will to consent, while they more or less hinder reason from considering their lawfulness or unlawfulness. This is concupiscence in its strict and specific sense. As long, however, as deliberation is not completely impeded, the rational will is able to resist such desires and withhold consent, though it be not capable of crushing the effects they produce in the body, and though its freedom and dominion be to some extent diminished. If, in fact, thewill resists, a struggle ensues, the sensuous appetite rebelliously demanding its gratification, reason, on the contrary, clinging to its own spiritual interests and asserting it control. "The flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." 83.70.251.105 06:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the lead is a bit off. Just a bit. ;-)

Can anyone think of a better amendment than Catholics think..." and "Protestants think..."?LCP 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] latin concupiscentia

The article should say what the latin means otherwise it is somewhat pointless to mention it has a latin root. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed it myself. Honestly, not including in the first place was just lazy. I'd chide whoever put it in there the way it was, but who cares. Would have fixed it sooner myself, but I was trying to make a point about making sloppy additions. It is important to put the meaning of roots like that when they don't have the same meaning as the modern word. Especially with religious Latinate words which are almost always ambiguously used for stuff they don't really mean.--66.153.117.118 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)