Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

Good morning, Gentle Readers,

It is a new day and a new week which is begun by attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Here is a simple question about previous Adam posts. Has anyone noticed how often the word perfect has been associated with the pre-Fall Adam and the pre-Fall original garden? Something to think about. If the word important was substituted for perfect, what would change in our approach to Adam?

 

[grannymh]

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.

While the excerpts include speculations about soul that are outside of Catholic teaching …
For example, referring to the “status of the soul rather than the body” denies the fact that human nature is a single nature and not two separate individual substances of spirit and matter. …

… The option of “*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.” *reminds me of the long-ago popular non-Catholic idea that there are “souls” in a heavenly place which are waiting for God to assign them to a new human being.

 

[grannymh]

While the excerpts include speculations about soul that are outside of Catholic teaching …
For example, referring to the “status of the soul rather than the body” denies the fact that human nature is a single nature and not two separate individual substances of spirit and matter. …

… The option of “*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.” *reminds me of the long-ago popular non-Catholic idea that there are “souls” in a heavenly place which are waiting for God to assign them to a new human being.

Continuation of comments based on the link in post 336.

Ah, one says, Catholicism does teach the differences between a spiritual soul and a material body. This is true.

However, understanding the differences as taught by Catholicism leads the reader into the Catholic Church. That is not the ultimate purpose of the link. Here is what is said on the link’s “About AP” page.
Our History
In the late 1970s, there was a need to make available more scripturally sound and scientifically accurate materials in the field of Christian apologetics. The idea for Apologetics Press was born—an idea that soon became a reality.

The section What We Believe contains a number of common Christian beliefs. Items 4. and 5. are not Catholic beliefs, that is, they are not doctrines.

While the 1970 Christian purpose is honorable, and there is interesting information in the link, we need to be aware of issues, such as human nature per se, which could have a variety of imaginative answers, not necessarily Catholic explanations. In other words, in this contemporary era of multiple Christian faiths, we need a sound understanding of Catholicism according to the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *This book is not a page turner.

One more quote from the link.
“This is the idea that all humans inherit the sin of Adam in some way—we suffer due to this original sin, and therefore we all are inescapably sinful by nature.”

It is my understanding that being “inescapably sinful” goes back to the first Protestant Reformers and in another sense, the opposite goes back to the Fifth century. (Information source. *CCC 402-*405 and 406 small print)

It is my humble observation that losing sight of Adam’s reality has spawned a number of philosophies which eventually, over time, chip away at Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church. Maybe … it is time to recognize the non-scientist author of the first three chapters of Genesis as an amazing philosopher.

 

[grannymh]

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.

As I think about Adam being free of Original Sin, there is the need to study his human nature. In addition to regular human nature, Adam originally received God’s free gift of *mastery of self. *(Information source: CCC 374 -377) Still, being human, Adam could be tempted by internal jealousy or envy of the powers of his Creator. In addition, there are the external influences of Satan.

From my viewpoint, I see that one of the differences between Adam and us is Adam’s gift of mastery of self. Human nature lost that gift as an effect of being wounded by Adam’s Original Sin.

Personally, I cannot say definitively what the exact temptation was or where it came from. I believe that is minor to what the author of Genesis, chapter three, was telling us. Using Divine Revelation given throughout Scripture, beyond the beginning of the book of Genesis, we learn that all human nature includes intellective rationality and the freedom to initiate and control one’s own actions. (Information source. CCC 1730-1732) These simple facts, observed by the Genesis author, are the foundation for Adam’s natural ability to freely choose disobedience to God. Within human nature per se, there is the real possibility of choosing between good and evil on planet earth.

Personally, if I ever meet Adam, I am going to slap him upside the head.

 

[simpleas]

The excerpts I posted was my way of trying to improve my own understanding of the soul and body.

If i’m correct, our faith teaches us we are created as a unity of Soul and Body, God gives us a soul at the time our body is conceived. We do not inherit our soul from any human being.

From the CCC: 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.”284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground,”285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286 (1607, 2514, 602, 1008):

So Adam and Eve through disobedience lose their soul’s control over their senses. (I can’t say Adam alone, because Eve was first to sin)
They then go on to procreate and so their off spring are born in the same way their parents became, deprived of O.H.

But God is the giver of the human soul, man is only the reproducer of the body, therefore man can not wound/corrupt/destroy or change a soul which God has kindly given to the individual human being.

The CCC : 364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232 (1004, 2289)

The CCC: 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

So that is why because we all came from one man, we are all born of this one nature?

The CCC: 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not “produced” by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 (1005, 997)

But then, if God creates the soul at conception, how does the one nature become affected by the first man. That seems to say that somehow Adam affected all souls, but he can not because he was only a creature.

And around I go again, anyone care to join me?

 

[fhansen]

The excerpts I posted was my way of trying to improve my own understanding of the soul and body.

If i’m correct, our faith teaches us we are created as a unity of Soul and Body, God gives us a soul at the time our body is conceived. We do not inherit our soul from any human being.

From the CCC: 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.”284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground,”285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286 (1607, 2514, 602, 1008):

So Adam and Eve through disobedience lose their soul’s control over their senses. (I can’t say Adam alone, because Eve was first to sin)
They then go on to procreate and so their off spring are born in the same way their parents became, deprived of O.H.

But God is the giver of the human soul, man is only the reproducer of the body, therefore man can not wound/corrupt/destroy or change a soul which God has kindly given to the individual human being.

The CCC : 364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232 (1004, 2289)

The CCC: 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

So that is why because we all came from one man, we are all born of this one nature?

The CCC: 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not “produced” by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 (1005, 997)

But then, if God creates the soul at conception, how does the one nature become affected by the first man. That seems to say that somehow Adam affected all souls, but he can not because he was only a creature.

And around I go again, anyone care to join me?

God participates in every act of every moment of our existence, from conception on. Even when we sin He’s in the act, because “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). We can do nothing, for better or worse, without Him; our free will lies solely in the fact that He allows our will to be done even if it opposes His will. This participation of His in every act that we choose to do includes Adam’s choice, to reject His authority, to reject God as his God, for all mankind; God enables that as well, even though the Church doesn’t claim to know exactly how OS is transmitted.

 

[fhansen]

As I think about Adam being free of Original Sin, there is the need to study his human nature. In addition to regular human nature, Adam originally received God’s free gift of *mastery of self. *(Information source: CCC 374 -377) Still, being human, Adam could be tempted by internal jealousy or envy of the powers of his Creator. In addition, there are the external influences of Satan.

The question this brings up for me is, where did Adam’s jealousy come from, seeing as how jealousy is considered, by the Church, to be sin? How could Adam have jealousy in the state of Original Justice? Does “being human” indicate a “lack” of something? Does it mean a reduction in culpability at all, even if only to a slight degree?

 

[grannymh]

The excerpts I posted was my way of trying to improve my own understanding of the soul and body.

If i’m correct, our faith teaches us we are created as a unity of Soul and Body, God gives us a soul at the time our body is conceived. We do not inherit our soul from any human being.

From the CCC: 400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay.”284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground,”285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286 (1607, 2514, 602, 1008):

So Adam and Eve through disobedience lose their soul’s control over their senses. (I can’t say Adam alone, because Eve was first to sin)
They then go on to procreate and so their off spring are born in the same way their parents became, deprived of O.H.

But God is the giver of the human soul, man is only the reproducer of the body, therefore man can not wound/corrupt/destroy or change a soul which God has kindly given to the individual human being.

The CCC : 364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232 (1004, 2289)

The CCC: 365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

So that is why because we all came from one man, we are all born of this one nature?

The CCC: 366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not “produced” by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235 (1005, 997)

But then, if God creates the soul at conception, how does the one nature become affected by the first man. That seems to say that somehow Adam affected all souls, but he can not because he was only a creature.

And around I go again, anyone care to join me?

As an incomplete response…sorry about that.
The operative word in red is control which is connected to inner harmony as explained
in CCC 374-379. When we explore this CCC section on “Man in Paradise” we discover that the grace of Original Holiness was to share in Divine Life. This is different from the inner harmony of the human person known as Original Justice.

*CCC *355 describes human nature all of which is connected in some manner to soul and body. Original Justice is not in this paragraph because Original Justice is a gift in addition to human nature per se. Paragraphs 356-357 expand CCC 355.

The important paragraphs 364 and 365 are already above. I suggest adding CCC 362.

Simpleas, you are not alone in your questions. Others do not share your courage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is not an easy read. Personally, I continue to learn new things from paragraphs that have been read a hundred times. For example, I just checked a footnote to CCC 376 and discovered that Genesis 2:25 is an example of the harmony of Original Justice.

This rather incomplete response is a foundation for answering questions. Adam is so essential that the Catechism has devoted numerous paragraphs (CCC 355-421) regarding this truth. In addition, there are more paragraphs such as *CCC *1730-1732.

In post 315, I suggested
"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."

If you wish to start with this comment from your post 341, you could pick an element and provide its truth as taught by Catholicism.

“But then, if God creates the soul at conception, how does the one nature become affected by the first man. That seems to say that somehow Adam affected all souls, but he can not because he was only a creature.”

 

[grannymh]

The question this brings up for me is, where did Adam’s jealousy come from, seeing as how jealousy is considered, by the Church, to be sin? How could Adam have jealousy in the state of Original Justice? Does “being human” indicate a “lack” of something? Does it mean a reduction in culpability at all, even if only to a slight degree?

Adam has eyes and ears. Jealousy is a free choice which occurs after the mind has comprehended what was seen by the eyes and heard by the ears. Some people act on their jealousy, some people harbor jealousy within themselves, and some people overcome their jealousy and remove it from their lives.

As I said in post 340, current emphasis is mine.
“Still, being human, Adam could be tempted by internal jealousy or envy of the powers of his Creator.”

“Could be tempted” is different from saying that Adam was tempted. To make sure that it is clear that could be was a possibility and not a completed action, I added this.

“Personally, I cannot say definitively what the exact temptation was or where it came from. I believe that is minor to what the author of Genesis, chapter three, was telling us.”

 

[fhansen]

Adam has eyes and ears. Jealousy is a free choice which occurs after the mind has comprehended what was seen by the eyes and heard by the ears. Some people act on their jealousy, some people harbor jealousy within themselves, and some people overcome their jealousy and remove it from their lives.

As I said in post 340, current emphasis is mine.
“Still, being human, Adam could be tempted by internal jealousy or envy of the powers of his Creator.”

“Could be tempted” is different from saying that Adam was tempted. To make sure that it is clear that could be was a possibility and not a completed action, I added this.

But it did end up in a completed action. I’m just trying to understand where the disobedience, the first sin, rose from, as God created everything good. I’m not sure that any answer would be 100% satisfactory. But both the Genesis narrative along with Church teachings prompt the question nonetheless.

 

[grannymh]

But it did end up in a completed action. I’m just trying to understand where the disobedience, the first sin, rose from, as God created everything good. I’m not sure that any answer would be 100% satisfactory. But both the Genesis narrative along with Church teachings prompt the question nonetheless.

Perhaps this paragraph from the CCC will help. Remember that free will is a good thing in itself. Possibility is the operative word. Note that the ultimate good which is God refers to seeing the Beatific Vision in heaven.

***CCC *1732 **As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
What also needs exploring is the fact that all humankind is in Adam as one body of one man. Because of Adam’s rational powers and subsequent freedom, Adam could sin; however, because of his status as the first human, the personal sin described in Genesis, chapter 3 affected all human nature including Eve’s. (Information source. “Man’s first sin” *CCC *397-406)

Please note:
Because only the singular event of Original Sin is described in Genesis, chapter 3, I will not speculate if Adam committed any kind of previous sins.

 

[fhansen]

Perhaps this paragraph from the CCC will help. Remember that free will is a good thing in itself. Possibility is the operative word. Note that the ultimate good which is God refers to seeing the Beatific Vision in heaven.

***CCC ***1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
What also needs exploring is the fact that all humankind is in Adam as one body of one man. Because of Adam’s rational powers and subsequent freedom, Adam could sin; however, because of his status as the first human, the personal sin described in Genesis, chapter 3 affected all human nature including Eve’s. (Information source. “Man’s first sin” *CCC *397-406)

Please note:
Because only the singular event of Original Sin is described in Genesis, chapter 3, I will not speculate if Adam committed any kind of previous sins.

Yes, so, again, it appears that our freedom, in regard to the use of our wills, contributes to our perfection or justice. And we’re taught that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”, meaning to elicit proper choices without forcing them upon us in my understanding. As we choose rightly, our justice apparently increases, even after initial justisfication at Baptism, according to the council of Trent. So while Adam & Eve were made good, their perfection was less than God ultimately desired I believe, allowing them the leeway-the freedom-to contribute their part in embracing it. And He still continues to work in us, in Adam’s fallen descendants, to that end. Very non-Calvinistic of Him.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, so, again, it appears that our freedom, in regard to the use of our wills, contributes to our perfection or justice. And we’re taught that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”, meaning to elicit proper choices without forcing them upon us in my understanding. As we choose rightly, our justice apparently increases, even after initial justisfication at Baptism, according to the council of Trent.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, so, again, it appears that our freedom, in regard to the use of our wills, contributes to our perfection or justice. And we’re taught that God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection”, meaning to elicit proper choices without forcing them upon us in my understanding. As we choose rightly, our justice apparently increases, even after initial justisfication at Baptism, according to the council of Trent. So while Adam & Eve were made good, their perfection was less than God ultimately desired I believe, allowing them the leeway-the freedom-to contribute their part in embracing it. And He still continues to work in us, in Adam’s fallen descendants, to that end. Very non-Calvinistic of Him.

 

[simpleas]

God participates in every act of every moment of our existence, from conception on. Even when we sin He’s in the act, because “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). We can do nothing, for better or worse, without Him; our free will lies solely in the fact that He allows our will to be done even if it opposes His will. This participation of His in every act that we choose to do includes Adam’s choice, to reject His authority, to reject God as his God, for all mankind; God enables that as well, even though the Church doesn’t claim to know exactly how OS is transmitted.

Well that’s the thing that troubles me, the church does not understand fully how O.S is transmitted.

 

[fhansen]

Well that’s the thing that troubles me, the church does not understand fully how O.S is transmitted.

Well, the Church doesn’t claim to know everything, but, IMO, the exact mechanism by which OS is transmitted wouldn’t be partuclarly important anyway. I don’t think it’d be a stretch to simply say that God deemed that it would be worthwhile for humankind to struggle with sin/the temptations of evil, in the face of impending death in an uncertain world, even after receiving the benefit of sanctifying grace-since Adam already possessed that gift and still sinned anyway.

 

[Aloysium]

Is it a matter of Original Sin being transmitted or a deficit in grace? If you see it as the latter, the question then becomes, “How is our humanity transmitted?”
I think the answer lies in the mystery of our existence. The reality appears beyond the capacity of thought to contain.

 

[simpleas]

Well, the Church doesn’t claim to know everything, but, IMO, the exact mechanism by which OS is transmitted wouldn’t be partuclarly important anyway. I don’t think it’d be a stretch to simply say that God deemed that it would be worthwhile for humankind to struggle with sin/the temptations of evil, in the face of impending death in an uncertain world, even after receiving the benefit of sanctifying grace-since Adam already possessed that gift and still sinned anyway.

Yeah I know the church doesn’t claim to know everything, but it claims to know how we can receive graces through the sacraments, through Christ, because of what Adam did. I think it would be important if we knew how the O.S is transmitted, then we’d know everything! I suppose we are still in a time where we can not know just yet, hense our seeking answers to the important questions. It’s one thing reading and being told what you should believe, and a entirely different thing to seek the answers for oneself.

Some people will say that revelation is completed, because of Christ sacrifice etc, others that revelation still unfolds, we as people change through generations, God never changes.

 

[grannymh]

Yeah I know the church doesn’t claim to know everything, but it claims to know how we can receive graces through the sacraments, through Christ, because of what Adam did.

Are you referring to the fact that because Adam is the first parent of all humankind, every person can receive grace because of what Christ did?

 

[simpleas]

As an incomplete response…sorry about that.
The operative word in red is control which is connected to inner harmony as explained
in CCC 374-379. When we explore this CCC section on “Man in Paradise” we discover that the grace of Original Holiness was to share in Divine Life. This is different from the inner harmony of the human person known as Original Justice.

*CCC *355 describes human nature all of which is connected in some manner to soul and body. Original Justice is not in this paragraph because Original Justice is a gift in addition to human nature per se. Paragraphs 356-357 expand CCC 355.

The important paragraphs 364 and 365 are already above. I suggest adding CCC 362.

Simpleas, you are not alone in your questions. Others do not share your courage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition is not an easy read. Personally, I continue to learn new things from paragraphs that have been read a hundred times. For example, I just checked a footnote to CCC 376 and discovered that Genesis 2:25 is an example of the harmony of Original Justice.

This rather incomplete response is a foundation for answering questions. Adam is so essential that the Catechism has devoted numerous paragraphs (CCC 355-421) regarding this truth. In addition, there are more paragraphs such as *CCC *1730-1732.

In post 315, I suggested
"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."

If you wish to start with this comment from your post 341, you could pick an element and provide its truth as taught by Catholicism.

“But then, if God creates the soul at conception, how does the one nature become affected by the first man. That seems to say that somehow Adam affected all souls, but he can not because he was only a creature.”

Yes, thank you for your suggestion.

Not sure how to start, but this came to mind when you said you would add 362 :

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

Man whole and entire is therefore willed by God, that’s easy enough to understand, also the description of how God created man. Breathing into him the breath of life, which I think of as God giving man part of himself (soul).

Adam and Eve procreate, they were whole and entire, (body and soul) so they could conceive another from themselves whole and entire (body and soul) and this way the fallen nature that they had decided for themselves and their off spring was reproduced.

But we know this is incorrect because :

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

They could only reproduce bodily, while God is the immediate giver of our souls. If O.S is transmitted by Adam then Adam is the giver of the soul, because he was made by God whole and entire. He passes on bodily and spiritually the human nature we know.

God being the giver of our souls makes more sense to me, because it seems more spiritual and more apart of God, but then the soul given by God at the time of our conception would be free from O.S, because Adam sinned with his own soul and can not pass this on to anyone.