Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[Zipply]

And may I respectfully comment that paragraphs 390-409 of the CCC do not specifically address any kind of difficulties in natural science research. I did not find citations for any journal. If I missed a citation, I would appreciate it if you would point it out.

to address another post above, no, I am not exasperated. There is a typically Catholic way if addressing important issues, and Grannymh employs it perfectly. How else could it have taken over two centuries to begin to recant the condemnation of Galileo and a heliocentric solar system? It’s very Catholic to create smoke at Mass, it is similarly Catholic to create smoke in debate. No problem.

The issue of the difficulties concerning reconciling human origins and original sin was not introduced into this thread by me. As I noted, it always crops up in a discussion of Adam. I am primarily responding to Granny’s blithe statement that all which is needed is a ‘proper understanding’. I have asked her for the substance of this proper understanding and have been denied. I sense that Granny is an internet warrior and thurifer from way back.

I don’t have much other interest in this thread, and evolution as a topic is still disallowed. Enjoy.

 

[grannymh]

to address another post above, no, I am not exasperated. There is a typically Catholic way if addressing important issues, and Grannymh employs it perfectly. How else could it have taken over two centuries to begin to recant the condemnation of Galileo and a heliocentric solar system? It’s very Catholic to create smoke at Mass, it is similarly Catholic to create smoke in debate. No problem.

The issue of the difficulties concerning reconciling human origins and original sin was not introduced into this thread by me. As I noted, it always crops up in a discussion of Adam. I am primarily responding to Granny’s blithe statement that all which is needed is a ‘proper understanding’. I have asked her for the substance of this proper understanding and have been denied. I sense that Granny is an internet warrior and thurifer from way back.

I don’t have much other interest in this thread, and evolution as a topic is still disallowed. Enjoy.

No offense taken.

Especially no offense with the use of the word thurifer which I had to look up in the dictionary. In fact, that simple reference made me realize that “proper understanding” needed some clear air, that is, one has to look at two, yes two, different substances.
I am referring to substance as used in this comment from post 416.

“I am primarily responding to Granny’s blithe statement that all which is needed is a ‘proper understanding’. I have asked her for the substance of this proper understanding and have been denied.”

Zipply, please accept my apology.

I did not realize that I was not totally clear (smoke must have gotten into my eyes like the classical song) in naming the two substances which differ from each other and thus they can have different approaches. I shall try again.

First substance. There is Catholic doctrine which must be properly understood. Second substance. There is scientific research which must be conducted properly. Or, if you wish, I could deal with scientific research first.

Coincidentally, in the wee hours, I was thinking about the scientific classification of vertebrates. Naturally, I googled “living vertebrates”. That opened my eyes! The scientific difficulty is that vertebrate humans need more descriptive information. The only independent source for human description is Divine Revelation as contained in Catholic doctrines.

In other words, we need to use our *philosophical *skills in order to properly understand human nature.

Any comments?

 

[simpleas]

It is the nature of the human to do whatever they will, demonstrated by the first ever living human being.

I just don’t think Adam was in union with God anymore than we can be, based on that fact of freewill, intelligence etc. Disobedience was always a part of Human nature it seems, part of our “make up”.

 

[simpleas]

It is the nature of the human to do whatever they will, demonstrated by the first ever living human being.

I just don’t think Adam was in union with God anymore than we can be, based on that fact of freewill, intelligence etc. Disobedience was always a part of Human nature it seems, part of our “make up”.

Continuing on from what I said here, I didn’t want it to sound like I believe that humans are disobedient from birth and thought we all are most likely to do our own will over God’s in every challange in our lives. That clearly isn’t true.

I think it’s worth discussing Adam and Eve’s relationship with God to a degree, because it could provide answers or at least thoughts for the open minded person on how we are as humans today and our relationship with God.

My own thought is this : Adam and Eve had union with God, perhaps in a more spiritual way that we do, not that I’m saying we can not have a special union with God too, but as the first two created, their relationship was some way different, because when they chose their will above God’s, this relationship was broken and human nature became wounded. It didn’t become evil, but now because of a break in union with God, man could do very evil things.
A&E had each other and God, they didn’t go forth and multiply before sin. They may have been enjoying each others company and tending to the garden, and before they could procreate, satan made a move and we know that all humans from the first parents are born with a fallen nature.

Does anyone have thoughts as to why A&E would have mis trusted God, and trusted satan with his promise of them being Gods.
I can not grasp the notion that they were prideful, when they were without that desire. They were holy, they knew what was expected of them, and having a union with God in an un fallen nature, they still attempted to know more.

How do we relate to two humans created in a pure and holy union with God, when we are to believe we are born with a wounded nature and separated from God until baptisim, and our own freewill out of love ordered toward God.
Having the gifts they had, using their own freewill, they still went against God. Not having seen God, they were still seeking him in some way, and did not think they needed to call on him.
They were either supernatural type human’s who didn’t make the grade in a cosmic sense, and were put out and cut off.
They were natural humans as we think of ourselves, who just needed to learn what was good and bad for them, but in a very hard way.
They are just a story created by teachers of that age to explain why some humans can do evil things.
I believe Jesus when he refers to God as creating Male and female in the beginning, but he doesn’t expand on that (I don’t think) by saying they were the first to make a choice to bring evil and death into the world. We came to that conclusion.

If we in a wounded nature can obey even though we may protest, why couldn’t A&E in a non wounded nature?

Just some thoughts on a lovely sunny sunday morning.

I apologise if my thoughts and imagination do not stay in line with CCC, but I know that if we all agreed with each other that the CCC answers these sort of questions then there would be no discussion, progress etc.

Any thoughts?

 

[grannymh]

Continuing on from what I said here, I didn’t want it to sound like I believe that humans are disobedient from birth and thought we all are most likely to do our own will over God’s in every challange in our lives. That clearly isn’t true.

I think it’s worth discussing Adam and Eve’s relationship with God to a degree, because it could provide answers or at least thoughts for the open minded person on how we are as humans today and our relationship with God.

My own thought is this : Adam and Eve had union with God, perhaps in a more spiritual way that we do, not that I’m saying we can not have a special union with God too, but as the first two created, their relationship was some way different, because when they chose their will above God’s, this relationship was broken and human nature became wounded. It didn’t become evil, but now because of a break in union with God, man could do very evil things.
A&E had each other and God, they didn’t go forth and multiply before sin. They may have been enjoying each others company and tending to the garden, and before they could procreate, satan made a move and we know that all humans from the first parents are born with a fallen nature.

Does anyone have thoughts as to why A&E would have mis trusted God, and trusted satan with his promise of them being Gods.
I can not grasp the notion that they were prideful, when they were without that desire. They were holy, they knew what was expected of them, and having a union with God in an un fallen nature, they still attempted to know more.

How do we relate to two humans created in a pure and holy union with God, when we are to believe we are born with a wounded nature and separated from God until baptisim, and our own freewill out of love ordered toward God.
Having the gifts they had, using their own freewill, they still went against God. Not having seen God, they were still seeking him in some way, and did not think they needed to call on him.
They were either supernatural type human’s who didn’t make the grade in a cosmic sense, and were put out and cut off.
They were natural humans as we think of ourselves, who just needed to learn what was good and bad for them, but in a very hard way.
They are just a story created by teachers of that age to explain why some humans can do evil things.
I believe Jesus when he refers to God as creating Male and female in the beginning, but he doesn’t expand on that (I don’t think) by saying they were the first to make a choice to bring evil and death into the world. We came to that conclusion.

If we in a wounded nature can obey even though we may protest, why couldn’t A&E in a non wounded nature?

Just some thoughts on a lovely sunny sunday morning.

I apologise if my thoughts and imagination do not stay in line with CCC, but I know that if we all agreed with each other that the CCC answers these sort of questions then there would be no discussion, progress etc.

Any thoughts?

The logical, that is the reasonable, approach to Adam can present many thoughts.

However,
Please, may I respectfully ask that the Catholic term for Adam’s Original State of Being be used instead of the generic description “union with God.” We need to pay attention to the fact that many peoples (plural intended) from west to east have different meanings about a person’s union with God or a more spiritual union or a special union. Naturally, we can talk about Adam’s union with his Maker, but when it comes to his State of Being, the State of his Soul, or the “State” he is in, it would be sincerely appreciated if the correct Catholic term is used.

The Catholic description of the original relationship between Adam and His Creator is that Adam is in the State of Sanctifying Grace aka the State of Original Holiness. Once the actual term State of Sanctifying Grace is used, a number of difficulties about the pre-Fall and the post-Fall Adam can be addressed.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

(Information source: CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; *CCC *375)

 

[simpleas]

The logical, that is the reasonable, approach to Adam can present many thoughts.

However,
Please, may I respectfully ask that the Catholic term for Adam’s Original State of Being be used instead of the generic description “union with God.” We need to pay attention to the fact that many peoples (plural intended) from west to east have different meanings about a person’s union with God or a more spiritual union or a special union. Naturally, we can talk about Adam’s union with his Maker, but when it comes to his State of Being, the State of his Soul, or the “State” he is in, it would be sincerely appreciated if the correct Catholic term is used.

The Catholic description of the original relationship between Adam and His Creator is that Adam is in the State of Sanctifying Grace aka the State of Original Holiness. Once the actual term State of Sanctifying Grace is used, a number of difficulties about the pre-Fall and the post-Fall Adam can be addressed.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

(Information source: CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898; *CCC *375)

Ok, no problem, I was using Union to mean O.H, but agree it could mean any sort of union between God and each individual.

Could Adam’s state of being, Original Holiness, the state of Sanctifying Grace, be different from ours?

I would say yes, because the O.H was a state of perfection of Sanctifying Grace unlike which we can experience.

When baptised we are washed clean of Original sin, but the effects remain. So even just one time in a person’s life they can loose the state of Sanctifying Grace. ( I know that Christ can restore that for us, if we are truly sorry for the sin)

Adam had no effects of a wounded nature, because his was first created without blemish.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Ok, no problem, I was using Union to mean O.H, but agree it could mean any sort of union between God and each individual.

Could Adam’s state of being, Original Holiness, the state of Sanctifying Grace, be different from ours?

No.
CCC definition of Sanctifying Grace.

SANCTIFYING GRACE: The grace which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity. It is a habitual, supernatural gift which continues the work of sanctifying us—of making us “perfect,” holy, and Christlike (1999).

CCC 1999

**1999 **The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the *sanctifying *or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, Who through Christ reconciled us to Himself.
​

I would say yes, because the O.H was a state of perfection of Sanctifying Grace unlike which we can experience.

Original Holiness refers to sharing in God’s divine life which is the same as Sanctifying Grace. (Information source. *CCC *376) It is neither possible nor practical to divide God’s divine life into two separate things. Original Holiness is Sanctifying Grace so it would not be possible to say one is a “perfection” and the other is not a “perfection” – regardless of the meaning of “perfection.”

Personally, I stay away from judging other people’s souls, alive or dead.

When baptised we are washed clean of Original sin, but the effects remain. So even just one time in a person’s life they can loose the state of Sanctifying Grace. ( I know that Christ can restore that for us, if we are truly sorry for the sin)

Adam had no effects of a wounded nature, because his was first created without blemish.

Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

No.
CCC definition of Sanctifying Grace.

SANCTIFYING GRACE: The grace which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity. It is a habitual, supernatural gift which continues the work of sanctifying us—of making us “perfect,” holy, and Christlike (1999).

CCC 1999

**1999 **The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the *sanctifying *or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, Who through Christ reconciled us to Himself.
​

Original Holiness refers to sharing in God’s divine life which is the same as Sanctifying Grace. (Information source. *CCC *376) It is neither possible nor practical to divide God’s divine life into two separate things. Original Holiness is Sanctifying Grace so it would not be possible to say one is a “perfection” and the other is not a “perfection” – regardless of the meaning of “perfection.”

Personally, I stay away from judging other people’s souls, alive or dead.

Thanks.

Sanctifying Grace as it explains is what heals us from our wounded nature.

Adam’s nature was not wounded, because he was created sinless.

Adam had to remain in the state of S.G, but chose not to. The CCC tells us :

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

And then here :

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.

But if God had man Adam free from triple concupiscence, then he could not have had a freedom to choose, is what I find difficult. This is why I keep thinking on Adam being not much different spiritually than us.

I do not intend to judge anyones soul, living or dead, that is God’s job.

Thanks for your help as always.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

Sanctifying Grace as it explains is what heals us from our wounded nature.

Adam’s nature was not wounded, because he was created sinless.

Adam had to remain in the state of S.G, but chose not to. The CCC tells us :

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence254 that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

And then here :

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.

But if God had man Adam free from triple concupiscence, then he could not have had a freedom to choose, is what I find difficult. This is why I keep thinking on Adam being not much different spiritually than us.

I do not intend to judge anyones soul, living or dead, that is God’s job.

Thanks for your help as always.

Freedom from concupiscence is God’s extra gift to Adam. As an added gift, it did not remove the fact that Adam being human, there was the possibility for him to either choose good or evil. We do not have that added gift. Because we are human like Adam, there is the possibility that we can either choose good or evil.

The good logic of human nature is that we are like Adam who was called to share in God’s Divine life. The bad side is that we contracted the State of Original Sin. The good side is that God did not abandon Adam or us.

 

[cfauster]

On this issue (why did Adam sin, given that he was not created with original sin), I wonder if the Orthodox have something to offer.

Here’s how one writer explains it:

The moral integrity of Adam and Eve is a prominent theme in the Latin church fathers’ and the Reformers’ reading of Genesis but not in the Orthodox tradition. Some of the Greek fathers writing before Augustine took Adam and Eve as childlike figures who partook of the forbidden fruit too early, when they were not yet mature enough to be eased by God into the necessary knowledge (experience) of good and evil. Theophilus of Antioch, for instance, commented, “Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily.” In a similar vein, Irenaeus of Lyons remarked, “The man was a young child, not yet having a perfect deliberation.” … The man and woman’s lack of shame at being naked implies a self-forgetfulness typical not only of animals but of children. Also typical of children is the special attraction of the forbidden. The woman quickly gives in to the insinuations of the serpent, and the man even more quickly joins her in eating of the forbidden fruit. In short, what Genesis describes is a “process, whose starting point is not perfection but nascence.” The first couple’s humanity was not given to them complete but was a work in progress. God created them neither mortal nor immortal, neither good nor bad (morally speaking), but neutral and free.

 

[grannymh]

On this issue (why did Adam sin, given that he was not created with original sin), I wonder if the Orthodox have something to offer.

Here’s how one writer explains it:

The moral integrity of Adam and Eve is a prominent theme in the Latin church fathers’ and the Reformers’ reading of Genesis but not in the Orthodox tradition. Some of the Greek fathers writing before Augustine took Adam and Eve as childlike figures who partook of the forbidden fruit too early, when they were not yet mature enough to be eased by God into the necessary knowledge (experience) of good and evil. Theophilus of Antioch, for instance, commented, “Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily.” In a similar vein, Irenaeus of Lyons remarked, “The man was a young child, not yet having a perfect deliberation.” … The man and woman’s lack of shame at being naked implies a self-forgetfulness typical not only of animals but of children. Also typical of children is the special attraction of the forbidden. The woman quickly gives in to the insinuations of the serpent, and the man even more quickly joins her in eating of the forbidden fruit. In short, what Genesis describes is a “process, whose starting point is not perfection but nascence.” The first couple’s humanity was not given to them complete but was a work in progress. God created them neither mortal nor immortal, neither good nor bad (morally speaking), but neutral and free.

Thank you, thank you.

For you. :flowers:

I have been wondering about the source of the idea–promoted on CAF–that Adam was stupid.

 

[cfauster]

Re. the similarities and differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic - and there are far more similarities than differences, I think - the following might be of interest. All include some mention of the original/ancestral sin question. The first two appear to be from Orthodox sources, and the third from a Catholic source (Anthony Padovano of Immaculate Conception Seminary in NJ). All three seem grounded in good will and good scholarship, as far as I can tell.

orthodoxresource.co.uk/comparative/roman-catholic.htm

pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm

ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2625/2273

 

[simpleas]

On this issue (why did Adam sin, given that he was not created with original sin), I wonder if the Orthodox have something to offer.

Here’s how one writer explains it:

The moral integrity of Adam and Eve is a prominent theme in the Latin church fathers’ and the Reformers’ reading of Genesis but not in the Orthodox tradition. Some of the Greek fathers writing before Augustine took Adam and Eve as childlike figures who partook of the forbidden fruit too early, when they were not yet mature enough to be eased by God into the necessary knowledge (experience) of good and evil. Theophilus of Antioch, for instance, commented, “Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily.” In a similar vein, Irenaeus of Lyons remarked, “The man was a young child, not yet having a perfect deliberation.” … The man and woman’s lack of shame at being naked implies a self-forgetfulness typical not only of animals but of children. Also typical of children is the special attraction of the forbidden. The woman quickly gives in to the insinuations of the serpent, and the man even more quickly joins her in eating of the forbidden fruit. In short, what Genesis describes is a “process, whose starting point is not perfection but nascence.” The first couple’s humanity was not given to them complete but was a work in progress. God created them neither mortal nor immortal, neither good nor bad (morally speaking), but neutral and free.

Cool thank you. This then says to me that there was no good sinless nature for nature to be fallen from.
If we are to believe that two first created beings were sinless, then they had a perfect nature, ordered etc. They fell from that nature and became fallen. If it was a process in the beginning, it is still a process now.

 

[cfauster]

Here’s how another writer puts it:

The first humans took a wrong road, one “that leads to destruction” (Matt. 7:13), away from the goal that God intended. They and their descendants were soon alienated from God. Humanity was lost in the woods and darkness had fallen … This image of “taking the wrong road,” like that of “the Fall,” is a metaphor for the human condition, not a historical narrative. But the picture of gradual departure from the course God intended is, as we noted earlier, one which the early chapters of Genesis convey … It is important to emphasize that it is not the condition of being on a journey, of being in process, which is itself sinful … The problem of sin is not that we are on a road, but that we are on a wrong road … If the human problem is as we have described it, salvation means being put on the right road. It is a renewal of creation, not as a return to a perfect primordial state but as a reorientation of creation to its proper goal. God begins this process with the call of Abram. Throughout Israel’s history (e.g., Joel 2:13), people are called to “return” to God. Finally God himself comes to share in the human condition, inviting and enabling people to follow him. The work of Christ is re-creation, and anyone in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

The entire article is here.

 

[grannymh]

Re. the similarities and differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic - and there are far more similarities than differences, I think - the following might be of interest. All include some mention of the original/ancestral sin question. The first two appear to be from Orthodox sources, and the third from a Catholic source (Anthony Padovano of Immaculate Conception Seminary in NJ). All three seem grounded in good will and good scholarship, as far as I can tell.

orthodoxresource.co.uk/comparative/roman-catholic.htm

pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm

ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ctsa/article/viewFile/2625/2273

My apology. I cannot comment because while there was a lot of information, some of which was familiar and some of which was not familiar, I found that the items in post 426 were better suited as the source of the current theory that Adam was stupid.

 

[grannymh]

Here’s how another writer puts it:

The first humans took a wrong road, one “that leads to destruction” (Matt. 7:13), away from the goal that God intended. They and their descendants were soon alienated from God. Humanity was lost in the woods and darkness had fallen … This image of “taking the wrong road,” like that of “the Fall,” is a metaphor for the human condition, not a historical narrative. But the picture of gradual departure from the course God intended is, as we noted earlier, one which the early chapters of Genesis convey … It is important to emphasize that it is not the condition of being on a journey, of being in process, which is itself sinful … The problem of sin is not that we are on a road, but that we are on a wrong road … If the human problem is as we have described it, salvation means being put on the right road. It is a renewal of creation, not as a return to a perfect primordial state but as a reorientation of creation to its proper goal. God begins this process with the call of Abram. Throughout Israel’s history (e.g., Joel 2:13), people are called to “return” to God. Finally God himself comes to share in the human condition, inviting and enabling people to follow him. The work of Christ is re-creation, and anyone in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

The entire article is here.

This article will be extremely interesting because the beginning refers to the Christological context. I have been aware of this approach, but have not studied any article referring to it. It is also interesting that the author holds a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in physics. A few years back, one of my favorite priests was telling about his entrance into the priesthood. He was coming from a physics background and was really worried about theology which seemed to go in the opposite direction. He was surprised when he found out that theology was rather easy because it is logical.

I skimmed the article looking for the scientific comments. No comments on these.
Of course, the author commented: “But it does seem unlikely that the present human race can be traced to a single male-female pair.” I printed the article because I found that using a yellow highlighter on the screen is not the best of ideas.

 

[simpleas]

Thanks for the full link. Interesting article.

From :

asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf

If Adam and Eve represent all humans, then they represent
also the first humans. And if humanity has been sinful
from the time that it came into being, without doing anything
to become sinful, sin would be part of human nature
itself. This would mean that in an important sense God
was the creator of sin. To avoid this conclusion, we must
use biblical texts about creation and sin for guidance in
trying to understand how the first human sin might have
had a role in bringing about a sinful condition as part of
the evolutionary process.

As A&E sinned from the beginning then sin is part of human nature. I do not mean that God is the creator of sin, but that, even being made in the image of God, the human that was created with freewill, by choice became a sinner.

Trying to get a grip on evolution, and at some point man becoming a sinner during the process is difficult. God set us apart from other creature’s for the reason that we are made in his likeness, but making us complete in two person’s and then letting them choose to sin, which effects their nature and everyone else’s has it’s difficulties too.

We are supposed to be higher intelligence than other creatures, yet we can be less moral than a creature that is non human.
O.S does not answer all question’s about our human nature.

 

[cfauster]

We are supposed to be higher intelligence than other creatures, yet we can be less moral than a creature that is non human.

Indeed. I do think Murphy is correct in the seriousness with which he takes the matter of original sin, using the analogy of humans being on “a wrong road.”

Here’s something from a great Catholic website on science and religion:

… the whole human race bears the marks of the sin since its origins…That original violation has consequences that pervade all human life, and to which every human sin perpetrated in history, contributes in some way…The fact that the created world has been entrusted to human beings increases their greatness and responsibility even at a bio-ecological level. Not only have humans a meaning by themselves, but they also assign a precise meaning to the reality around them. Their uniqueness stems from their capacity to produce culture based on projectuality and symbolism more than from the degree of their morphological evolution or from the associated results. The greatness of human beings within God’s general project over creation depends on their capacity to recognize their Creator, on their freedom and the calling they received to conform to Jesus Christ, the archetype and the true image of all human beings. Because human beings are in charge of developing the creation of a world that God wanted as evolving, they must take care of it and drive the evolution of the natural resources in all their potential, in praise to God and for the sake of all their fellow creatures. It is the task humankind has, animated by the Spirit of Christ, to lead all cosmic and human realities towards the final stages of history, when Christ will sum up all things created by God to give them back to the Father for ever.

Here’s the link to the article: inters.org/origin-nature-of-man

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for the full link. Interesting article.

From :

asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF6-06Murphy.pdf

If Adam and Eve represent all humans, then they represent
also the first humans. And if humanity has been sinful
from the time that it came into being, without doing anything
to become sinful, sin would be part of human nature
itself. This would mean that in an important sense God
was the creator of sin. To avoid this conclusion, we must
use biblical texts about creation and sin for guidance in
trying to understand how the first human sin might have
had a role in bringing about a sinful condition as part of
the evolutionary process.

As A&E sinned from the beginning then sin is part of human nature. I do not mean that God is the creator of sin, but that, even being made in the image of God, the human that was created with freewill, by choice became a sinner.

Trying to get a grip on evolution, and at some point man becoming a sinner during the process is difficult. God set us apart from other creature’s for the reason that we are made in his likeness, but making us complete in two person’s and then letting them choose to sin, which effects their nature and everyone else’s has it’s difficulties too.

We are supposed to be higher intelligence than other creatures, yet we can be less moral than a creature that is non human.
O.S does not answer all question’s about our human nature.

This is the straw that tells me I need a break…
If Adam and Eve represent all humans, then they represent
also the first humans.

Thank you all for your contributions.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed. I do think Murphy is correct in the seriousness with which he takes the matter of original sin, using the analogy of humans being on “a wrong road.”

Here’s something from a great Catholic website on science and religion:

… the whole human race bears the marks of the sin since its origins…That original violation has consequences that pervade all human life, and to which every human sin perpetrated in history, contributes in some way…The fact that the created world has been entrusted to human beings increases their greatness and responsibility even at a bio-ecological level. Not only have humans a meaning by themselves, but they also assign a precise meaning to the reality around them. Their uniqueness stems from their capacity to produce culture based on projectuality and symbolism more than from the degree of their morphological evolution or from the associated results. The greatness of human beings within God’s general project over creation depends on their capacity to recognize their Creator, on their freedom and the calling they received to conform to Jesus Christ, the archetype and the true image of all human beings. Because human beings are in charge of developing the creation of a world that God wanted as evolving, they must take care of it and drive the evolution of the natural resources in all their potential, in praise to God and for the sake of all their fellow creatures. It is the task humankind has, animated by the Spirit of Christ, to lead all cosmic and human realities towards the final stages of history, when Christ will sum up all things created by God to give them back to the Father for ever.

Here’s the link to the article: inters.org/origin-nature-of-man

There is way too much for me to handle …
My computer is in the process of printing 28 pages of information.

For example. This is a wonderful sentence.
The greatness of human beings within God’s general project over creation depends on their capacity to recognize their Creator, on their freedom and the calling they received to conform to Jesus Christ, the archetype and the true image of all human beings.
For example. In my humble opinion, the greatness of human beings is Genesis 1: 26-27.

For example. The sections on scientific evolution appear complicated because at times, I cannot tell if the human species is included. It will take days to determine what is actually being said in context. And if I can analyze this article properly, then there is the possibility that discussion might circle back to the last scientific straw.
"This is the straw that tells me I need a break…
If Adam and Eve represent all humans, then they represent
also the first humans."
There is no doubt that this article and your previous articles will answer some of my personal questions and will either verify or not verify some of my personal observations. But these will relate to issues off CAF and not necessarily be part of this thread. I am willing to bet a dollar to a donut that only a few readers will recognize what “If Adam and Eve represent all humans, then they represent
*also the first humans.” refers to – which may be possibly off topic for this thread. *

It is time for me to take a break.

Thank you all for your contributions.