S
simpleas
Guest
How can Adam not be the cause? He allowed sin to enter through him, but he could have willed other wise…
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
I was thinking that I would back off with the questions as they are going off in a direction to which the purpose of this thread is about.Please accept my sincere apology regarding your recent posts.
It would take me hours to figure out what exactly is being said and what exactly is being questioned and what exactly Catholicism teaches and what exactly are the basic truths which are being explained or are being questioned. And by that time, we would be close to the 1,000 post limit and I would be six feet under.
Seriously,
If you are willing, I am willing to start with one or three basic truths which you totally understand as being taught by the Catholic Church. In my personal opinion, one is always free to believe or not believe as long as the teaching is understood correctly.
Once we have a proper understanding of some basic Catholic truths, we can continue, along the line of deductive reasoning, to more truths which may be questionable. Picture a wonderful tree growing strong from firm roots.
Years ago, I landed on CAF and found out that Adam and Eve were not real according to some, not all, people. Since then, I have been studying how to establish Adam’s reality. In order to do that, I find that there are all kinds of Catholic doctrines related to Adam. That can be overwhelming. Consequently, if we start with some solid basic truths and branch out (pun intended), I believe we can answer most, maybe not all, questions.
I’ll try and leave the thread to evolve the way you intended it to.
Yes starting with the Catholic truths maybe a good idea, I can read and understand the CCC on some things
Thanks.
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, that’s what I was getting at. It seems obvious to me that we are separated from Him-or else we wouldn’t sin-or be harmed by sin. The newspapers would be very different-maybe there’d be little news to print.
Anyway, even after baptism we’re still often drawn to sin, enticed by concupiscence-which his nothing more than our own lusts-our own desires to walk* our* way and not necessarily God’s way. We struggle with sin (Heb 12), hopefully overcoming it with the help of grace but all the while deciding, by our acts, which we we’ll go, turned to God or away from Him.
A
Aloysium
Guest
My answer would be in what follows, but since I arrange things bit differently, I do not address your question directly.
Honestly, to view Adam as the cause of sin seems to me a distortion of what has occurred.
I do understand that it is how you are conceptualizing the Genesis story, perhaps this will help with your search.
In thinking about the logic of Adam, I start from the ontological reality of Adam in this world:
- I am a expression of humanity.
- The complete/whole “man” is Adam.
what is an undeniable reality is that
we find ourselves in a state of sin, within and without.
We are broken within ourselves and in our relationships with the world, each other and God.
God who is Goodness, did not create this evil world,
it is what transpires when we damage our relationship with Him.
This is the reality in the moment, but we exist as temporal beings.
Who we are ontologically had a beginning.
As we are persons, there had to be an original person.
As we are persons in relation to one another as children of God,
the first person had to exist in relation to another child of God.
God did not create two separate persons; He created two (Adam and Eve) from the first (Adam).
We exist as our individual selves but also as community, as a Church.
We think in thoughts and symbols whose basic nature is communication.
These words and images evoke ideas in the other.
We share common human feelings, and each in our particular way, the same gifts.
With respect to God, we are meant to share in His love.
By obeying in Eden, as does the Son in eternity,
we would have been elevated to eternal communion with Him.
This did not happen as we chose otherwise, but
through the incarnation of the Word, we can truly call God our Father.
The Word:
- is the whereby we were created
- speaks to us in history
- established His Church on earth
- created the way for His coming, which
- reveals through the cross and the resurrection
- how in eternity, the Lamb was slain at the foundation of the world
- thereby redeeming and saving humanity
We are in Christ brought into the loving filial relationship that is our fulfillment.
G
grannymh
Guest
A sincere thank you to Simpleas, Fhansen, and Aloysium who have answered this challenge in their immediate above posts. Others may also join in this discussion.
It appears that human “sin” is being discussed.
In practical reality, there is the fact that the only species which can freely choose to sin against God is the human species. Obviously, human sin goes with the territory of being human. This does not imply that there are sin genes in the human genome. We need to keep in mind the basic Catholic teaching that human nature per se is an unique unification of both the material world (decomposing genetic anatomy) *and *the spiritual world (rational intellective soul).
It is my understanding that that one of the basic truths is that God exists as the Creator and as the Creator, God interacts with human creatures.
Deductive reasoning leads us to the difference between the Creator and His creation.
Consider for a moment, the proposal that a series or variety of human types descended from mixed breeding populations over thousands of years. This would destroy the obvious unity of humankind and its universal solidarity and charity – which rises up to condemn the current actions of renegades against our fellow humans.
The current difference between the Creator and human creatures is that there is one Creator and many human creatures. This obvious conclusion may sound silly and inconsequential until one reads the first three chapters of Genesis without prejudice. The non-scientific Genesis author lived in a world inhabited by many cultures. He grew up in the Hebrew tradition of Abraham’s Covenant with God. Surely, this author would have started with his people’s successful relationship with God and then their punishments for disobedience.
Instead, this realistic author described the truth that all humanity is in Adam “as one body of one man.” CCC 404. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/404.htm It is Adam’s sole responsibility to remain in a"friendship" relationship with his Maker. CCC 396. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/396.htm
Using the above as a foundation of truths (including info from the cited* CCC* paragraphs), what are some of the following steps or truths regarding human “sin”?
Would it be reasonable to examine human nature per se when it comes to human “sin”?
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes. In 404, the claim is made that original sin has been passed from one man to all his descendants. Do all sin? If our answer is “yes”-if, IOW, all humans act outside of character, not in accord with the way they were designed to be in some manner or another, not aligned with truth IOW, even to the slightest degree, then we’re already agreeing with the doctrine of OS in essence, that things are not exactly as they “should be”, and as, presumably then, they once were. And such external revelation is the only way we could come to know this truth about ourselves.
396 tells us that to forestall this unnatural situation man must remain subjugated to God, not apart from or opposed to His will-or His friendship- apparently a more intimate relationship than mere slave-to-master obedience.
S
simpleas
Guest
Adam and Eve were not separate from God, yet they sinned…Well, that’s what I was getting at. It seems obvious to me that we are separated from Him-or else we wouldn’t sin-or be harmed by sin. The newspapers would be very different-maybe there’d be little news to print.
S
simpleas
Guest
Thanks for taking time to write this.
I’m afraid I’m not understanding it. The way I read it is your account of how you view sin in the world in which we live, sin exists, people do what they desire and destroy humanity and creation along the way. (not everyone of course) This I agree with obviously. But what you say sounds like there was always sin, even in the beginning, which in a way there was! But I’m trying to envision a harmony within the human persons of Adam and Eve, when there was NO sin. When they never desired to go against God.
Adam was the first to damage this relationship, so he would be responsible, wouldn’t he?
I’m not saying I blame Adam for the state of the world, we have been taught what is right and wrong, we are responsible for what we do in the here and now, but they way in which we are as humans comes directly from Adam, because of his sin.
Where our own freedom comes into this, I’m unsure.
S
simpleas
Guest
Ok, so what is the character of the human person?
We have changed throughout history. We aren’t the same “type” of people even when Jesus taught us the way.
We have progressed some, but like we said afew posts back, we never met Adam and Eve, has anyone met someone who we would say, that is a person in full union with God?
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents:
When we conduct our lives with love, reason and commitment, we walk with God.
All goodness follows with a faithful and hopeful giving of oneself to what is true and good.
Disappointments and failures become challenges, spurring one forward, making for a fuller life.
Suffering adds depth to existence, making clear what has true value.
When we sin, we damage this relationship, becoming less loving, less rational, less faithful.
Through the incarnation of the Word, we here on earth, have the capacity to grow in the Way that is Christ Himself as part of our human nature.
Growing in Him, becoming more Christ-like, the division between heaven and earth begins to dissipate.
Adam as the totality of man, was also the first man.
This I see as being not dissimilar to the fact that Jesus is both man and God…
I am an expression of humanity; he was humanity.
He also was a person like you or I, existing as the heroes of our personal existence - thinking, perceiving, feeling and loving.
Thus, through one man, we as one mankind fell into sin.
In Christ, we re-enter into right relation, into a mutually loving encounter with God in eternity.
The fact of our individual existence is all very, very amazing. The briefest moment in a human life is so far more magnificent than the largest supernova.
In order to create all this, God introduced the possibility of sin.
Therefore, before the foundation of the world, He sacrificed His Son that all this evil would be taken into Him, so that goodness would reign.
This, as described by Peter, was revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Our freedom is a manifestation of human freedom.
We each in ourselves, as part of the greater whole of mankind, decide whether we are for God.
As we are in a filial relationship with God, and since He knows what is best for us, we are obliged to submit to Him.
Not that He is a Tyrrant, but because He is love, beauty, truth and life.
Not to submit is to give oneself over to death, illusion and the ugliness of hate and indifference.
G
grannymh
Guest
Therefore, (from CCC 396) human nature has to have both the intellective capability to understand subjection to God and the freedom to oppose the will of God.
Because Adam is specifically a human person, he knew from the moment of his creation what would be an evil action and what would be a good action. Human nature is created with the freedom to interact with the Creator. As long as human freedom has not become definitively and solely united with the Creator, the Beatific Vision in heaven, there exists the possibility of human choice between good actions and evil actions.
Considering the unlimited power of God, there is no logical reason that His first human being would be half a human. Neither are we half human. We are a fully-complete human at the moment of conception when God creates our own Spiritual Soul. Our spiritual soul is why we have both the intellective capability to understand subjection to God and the freedom to oppose the will of God
Therefore, being a fully-complete human person, we ultimately had to descend from someone who has our human nature which includes the rational intellective understanding of both evil actions and good actions plus the capability to perform those actions.
A tree in the original garden does not have God’s creative power to make us in His image, aka, spiritual soul.
Adam was a fully-complete human person the first moment he experienced in the Garden.
Therefore, he knew right from wrong which would be one of the conditions for Original Sin.
Information source. *CCC *1730-1732
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, they knew* what* not to do-they didn’t yet know* why* not to do it. They hadn’t yet tasted the effects or consequences of the choice to disobey-to break the one command God had given them.
G
grannymh
Guest
When we do examine human nature per se, we are not limited to the first three chapters of Genesis.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to examine the philosophical error of Cartesian extreme dualism.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, this is a good point. And it leads us back to the same difficult question, why did Adam sin? His first sin was more basic than later sins, whether our sins or his own; it was the decision, for all humanity, about whether or not to sin, to begin with. A decision as to whether or not he would follow God, remaining in communion with Him, or follow his own ideas of right and wrong, creating his own morality, his own law, being his own god. According to our faith, once this communion with God is broken, then sin is virtually unavoidable. By trying to gain more control, man actually loses self-control. We cannot maintain moral integrity apart from grace, apart from God.
A& E were not separated from God and yet they weren’t fully unified with Him either-in will. They were not automatons who had to do as He said-they were given the freedom to disobey. Man is drawn to that which he perceives to be the greatest good-and then our wills conform accordingly. God had not yet become that for Adam. So while Adam, as created, wasn’t turned away from God , he wasn’t turned fully towards Him, either. That would only happen as Adam came to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, as it does for us all. And, apparently, He wants us to begin to develop this love without first having recourse to the Beatific Vision, where full union is consummated, where our greatest good is finally realized.
F
fhansen
Guest
Our basic charater/nature is determined by God. Adam took a step away from the perfection he was given. But the purpose is to end up regaining it, via a long detour out of Eden-and obtaining even more yet in the end.
G
grannymh
Guest
In my humble opinion, the reason “Why did Adam sin?” is so difficult in this century is because we have not taken the time to study basic human nature. The “What is Adam?” question is the foundation for exploring subsequent questions.
Furthermore, it is the full knowledge of human nature which demonstrates the singular creation of Adam. Obviously, with the variety of philosophies we have today, it is necessary that true universal human nature would not consist of inconsistencies.
D
davidv
Guest
It seems to me the A&E sinned for the same reasons that we do today. The only difference is the sources of temptation. Being free of original sin they were not tempted by internal desires, only external influences.
F
fhansen
Guest
And yet the story tells us that Eve perceived the fruit as pleasing to the eye and good for gaining wisdom. And the Catechism tells us that, by his first act of disobedience, Adam was wanting to be like God…It seems that their own lusts were involved, even as they were tempted by the devil to swallow his lies.
G
grannymh
Guest
Naturally, Adam’s personal reason for sinning could be similar to our personal reason for sinning. He and we have a human nature.
A human being who is free from triple concupiscence does not imply that temptations to sin did not exist.
We need to recall that God gave human nature the freedom to initiate and control personal actions so that the human person “might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to Him.”
(CCC 1730, including the small print which indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations as explained in CCC 20-21)
Neither does freedom from triple concupiscence take away natural material desires. If it did, it would be inconsistent with true human nature which unites the material world with the spiritual world. (CCC 362-368) Adam is dependent on his Creator which means that he must live in free submission to God. This includes being “subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.” (CCC 396)
“As long as human freedom has not become definitively and solely united with the Creator, the Beatific Vision in heaven, there exists the possibility of human choice between good actions and evil actions.” (Post 327 above.)
S
simpleas
Guest
I have to find some links on Cartesian, I have come across a link which takes me back to our post’s previously on the Soul.
I think these two excerpts are interesting :
someone who believes in sinful human nature might be (and probably is) referring to the status of the soul rather than the body. Before assessing the possibility of the essential blameworthiness of the human soul, consider that for someone to think of the soul as essentially sinful, there are some concepts of soul which he must reject. For example, the Aristotelian view of the soul as being the animating force of the body, or that which activates the body’s potential, does not allow for the human to “start out” as blameworthy. Guilt, on this view, cannot arise from outside of the human order, because Aristotle does not posit a supernatural being to ascribe the guilt. Furthermore, humans could not possibly claim to know that a newborn baby was already guilty if they did not think that God had ascribed guilt to the baby from outside the human order.
The only remaining option is that the soul becomes sinful at the time when it is embodied, at the occasion of the union of soul and body. If the soul is innocent prior to embodiment—and as we have seen, there is no obvious reason to think it guilty—then the body is the substance that is responsible for the guilt in the union. We have already shown the difficulty of associating blame with matter. Furthermore, recall that the common view of sinful nature is that we have inherited the sins of an ancestor. His soul was guilty, not because of contact with matter, but because of his own sinful volition. This was the “original” sin. Guilt was introduced on this occasion, but did not exist prior. This ancestor did not inherit guilt, so matter, at least in his case, did not bring sin. Why should we think matter brings sin in our case?
apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3749
I think I’m still in line with the thread.
I personally do not think we receive a sinful soul, however as I’ve said before, it is our souls that animate our bodies, so we could be free from sin at conception, until we progress in spirituality with age.
Adam and Eve choose to disobey God, they sinned against God by their own freewill.
- Status