Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[cfauster]

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

Indeed, it’s a long article. At the very bottom is a little PDF icon, which gives the article in a better format for printing. But it’s still 25 pages long!

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

Here’s what the organization says in its descriptions of itself and its website:

The Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science website seeks to help scientists frame their work within a philosophical and humanistic context. It also seeks to aid people trained in theology to approach, through the humanistic reflections of scientists, the rationale of scientific activity. The Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science website is edited by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research (ADSIR), operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. The documents and services presented are intended to meet the growing need for qualified and accurate information on the relationship between theology, philosophy and scientific thought. The website is principally addressed to those who work in the field of school and university teaching, in pastoral initiatives for the Christian evangelization of culture, or those who are interested in the interdisciplinary aspects of scientific research.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed, it’s a long article. At the very bottom is a little PDF icon, which gives the article in a better format for printing. But it’s still 25 pages long!

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

Here’s what the organization says in its descriptions of itself and its website:

The Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science website seeks to help scientists frame their work within a philosophical and humanistic context. It also seeks to aid people trained in theology to approach, through the humanistic reflections of scientists, the rationale of scientific activity. The Interdisciplinary Documentation on Religion and Science website is edited by the Advanced School for Interdisciplinary Research (ADSIR), operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, Rome. The documents and services presented are intended to meet the growing need for qualified and accurate information on the relationship between theology, philosophy and scientific thought. The website is principally addressed to those who work in the field of school and university teaching, in pastoral initiatives for the Christian evangelization of culture, or those who are interested in the interdisciplinary aspects of scientific research.

Thank you for your response. What you have posted is essential information.

Off CAF, I am already working in the interdisciplinary arena of the Catholic religion, the broad scope of biology and paleoanthropology specialized as the science of human evolution, Thomistic philosophy, with access to proper Catholic theologians.
I am the “Girl Friday” who can rush in where angels fear to tread.

My incomplete scan that produced enough valuable information is the reason I started printing – which is better for my eyes. When I was writing for money, back in the dark ages before fax machines and Google, I had to have in my hip pocket, the sources for the “facts” I would be referring to. That habit still nags me.

Regarding this point in the above quote, in pastoral initiatives for the Christian evangelization of culture

What is becoming obvious from sources like BioLogos Foundation is that certain areas of the Christian evangelization of culture exclude some specific Catholic doctrines such as those flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. In general, one can speak about the old Christian traditions surrounding Adam and Eve, but in practical discourse we need to be aware that some Christian traditions have dropped the necessary source of two first sole fully-complete human parents of all humanity.

When Google landed me in the middle of CAF, one of the first things I learned was that Adam and Eve did not exist. Fortunately, an atheist discussion partner brought me up to speed. From there, I started learning some science and some philosophy and some figurative language, and some Catholic doctrines which were being scheduled for updating in order to comport with scientific findings. I am grateful to CAF for the contacts I made which eventually landed me in my current off CAF position of Girl Friday.

This thread has entered the general debate of whether or not Catholicism teaches that Adam was a fully-complete human person. Naturally, understanding the real existing Adam would be the basic foundation for the logic of Adam’s position in Catholic doctrines. This is a very necessary debate because from what I observed over the years, some, not all, basic common sense Original Sin doctrines have somehow slipped away from some, not all, Catholic education. For example, there are some people who do not recognize the full significance of the comment that God is Divine and Adam is human. And, sad to say, there are some people who do not recognize the full significance of Adam’s human nature per se. One of the damage sources is the exaggeration of the concept of perfect as applied to the Creator’s first two human creatures and the environment of the first garden cultivated by a human person.

What has happened is that as OP, I need to choose which road this thread should follow. Currently, I find it near impossible to return to post 1 with all the important current discussions in progress. Therefore, it is time for me to take a break.

I totally respect CAF’s posted policy in the **sticky **at the top of this and other forums.
Therefore, I will respect its limitations when discussing Adam from the perspective of other Christian faiths.

As I said in post 435, "There is way too much for me to handle … "

Nonetheless, having these articles will help me trace back to sources of information for the ideas of some, not all, Catholics. Knowing both the philosophical and scientific bases for current ideas is essential when it comes time to decipher Catholic speculations.

cfauster, I owe you big time. Thank you. Feel free to collect anytime – provided I am able to do so. Sometimes, this older than dirt brain likes to play hooky.

Thank you all for your contributions.
Please keep my work off CAF and the work of others who defend Catholic basic doctrines off CAF and on CAF in your Christian prayers.

 

[cfauster]

One of the damage sources is the exaggeration of the concept of perfect as applied to the Creator’s first two human creatures and the environment of the first garden cultivated by a human person.

I agree. The first humans were part of God’s good creation, but they were not perfect. So, the problem of how they could sin is not as great as it might be if they had been perfect! Only God, the Creator, is perfect.

Personally I also think it’s important (and unfortunate) that the first humans failed to act in the best ways, ways that could, at least in principle, have set us on the right road rather than the wrong road.

In any case, the problem of sin is real and serious. Thanks be to God, the remedy offered through Christ is also real, and sufficient!

You don’t owe me at all, grannymh. I sincerely and deeply appreciate the thoughts you and all CAF participants share.

I do indeed pray that your work on and off CAF continues to bear fruit and glorify God.

 

[grannymh]

I agree. The first humans were part of God’s good creation, but they were not perfect. So, the problem of how they could sin is not as great as it might be if they had been perfect! Only God, the Creator, is perfect.

Personally I also think it’s important (and unfortunate) that the first humans failed to act in the best ways, ways that could, at least in principle, have set us on the right road rather than the wrong road.

In any case, the problem of sin is real and serious. Thanks be to God, the remedy offered through Christ is also real, and sufficient!

You don’t owe me at all, grannymh. I sincerely and deeply appreciate the thoughts you and all CAF participants share.

I do indeed pray that your work on and off CAF continues to bear fruit and glorify God.

Personally, I think it is a toss up which is the more serious problem in the first three chapters of Genesis.

On the other hand, here are the first three accepted true statements (working axioms) from post 1.

1. God as Creator exists.
   Therefore,
2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
   Therefore,
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.

Perhaps it is time to shift from the logic of Adam to the logic of God.

 

[cfauster]

Indeed. I think Pope Francis articulated it well again this week. So many things touched on in his brief talk. I especially liked his distinction between freedom and autonomy. Here’s how he concluded his remarks to scientists:

… the scientist must be motivated by the confidence that nature hides, in her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities for intelligence and freedom to discover and realise, to achieve the development that is in the plan of the Creator. So, while limited, the action of humanity is part of God’s power and is able to build a world suited to his dual corporal and spiritual life; to build a human world for all human beings and not for a group or a class of privileged persons. This hope and trust in God, the Creator of nature, and in the capacity of the human spirit can offer the researcher a new energy and profound serenity. But it is also true that the action of humanity – when freedom becomes autonomy – which is not freedom, but autonomy – destroys creation and man takes the place of the Creator. And this is the grave sin against God the Creator.”

 

[grannymh]

Indeed. I think Pope Francis articulated it well again this week. So many things touched on in his brief talk. I especially liked his distinction between freedom and autonomy. Here’s how he concluded his remarks to scientists:

… the scientist must be motivated by the confidence that nature hides, in her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities for intelligence and freedom to discover and realise, to achieve the development that is in the plan of the Creator. So, while limited, the action of humanity is part of God’s power and is able to build a world suited to his dual corporal and spiritual life; to build a human world for all human beings and not for a group or a class of privileged persons. This hope and trust in God, the Creator of nature, and in the capacity of the human spirit can offer the researcher a new energy and profound serenity. But it is also true that the action of humanity – when freedom becomes autonomy – which is not freedom, but autonomy – destroys creation and man takes the place of the Creator. And this is the grave sin against God the Creator.”

Would it be possible to check the link? I keep getting a screen which says Catchable Fatal Error.

 

[Aloysium]

Try: news.va/en/news/francis-in-the-pontifical-academy-of-sciences-emph

Here’s more of the quote.

Pope Francis chose not to focus on the complex issue of the evolution of nature, the theme the Academy will consider during this session, emphasising however that “God and Christ walk with us and are also present in nature”. . . . “With regard to man, instead, there is a change and something new. When, on the sixth day of the account in Genesis, man is created, God gives the human being another autonomy, an autonomy that is different to that of nature, which is freedom. And he tells man to name everything and to go ahead through history. This makes him responsible for creation, so that he might dominate it in order to develop it until the end of time. Therefore the scientist, and above all the Christian scientist, must adopt the approach of posing questions regarding the future of humanity and of the earth, and, of being free and responsible, helping to **prepare it and preserve it, to eliminate risks to the environment of both a natural and human nature. **But, at the same time, the scientist must be motivated by the confidence that nature hides, in her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities for intelligence and freedom to discover and realise, to achieve the development that is in the plan of the Creator. So, while limited, the action of humanity is part of God’s power and is able to build a world suited to his dual corporal and spiritual life; to build a human world for all human beings and not for a group or a class of privileged persons. This hope and trust in God, the Creator of nature, and in the capacity of the human spirit can offer the researcher a new energy and profound serenity. But it is also true that the action of humanity – when freedom becomes autonomy – which is not freedom, but autonomy – destroys creation and man takes the place of the Creator. And this is the grave sin against God the Creator”, he concluded.

What this says to me basically is that we can come to know the will of God through nature. Within nature, within ourselves as corporeal beings, we find reason and free will. A major problem with science as an arm of economic and political forces, is that it can reduce mankind as well as nature to a thing. In doing so, the sacredness of existence, of each and everyone of us, in whatever form we may come, is lost. The journey we are on is directed towards ultimate union, in love with God. This must be remembered by those scientists who study mankind. In the end, it is science which must conform to God’s will.

 

[cfauster]

Try: news.va/en/news/francis-in-the-pontifical-academy-of-sciences-emphIn the end, it is science which must conform to God’s will.

I agree in the sense that scientists, like all people, must conform to God’s will.

Science itself is a method of investigation, a method of inquiry. It works, but only for certain questions.

Perhaps one of the things of which Francis is reminding the scientists is that science can’t answer all questions.

Perhaps another is that there are very important moral values at stake when it comes to how the knowledge acquired through scientific investigations is applied.

Yet another might be - if one understands nature to be God’s creation - that a major motivation for even doing science is to better know that creation and thus better know the Creator.

 

[OneSheep]

General Question for today.

Why would God’s True Love tolerate the original mortal sin?

Good Morning, Granny!

I thought that this question would be more applicable here.

When I think about the Question, I think with my own mind, from my own frame of reference. I have no other frame of reference, and even when I try to use a different frame of reference, it is still me in my own frame trying to see through a different frame, so there is no escape from the autonomy of the human mind.

In other words, when you ask the question, “Why would God’s True Love tolerate the original mortal sin?” I can only, realistically, answer the question, “Why would I tolerate original mortal sin?”

Well, I would not just tolerate it, I would forgive it, immediately. Indeed, if I were God, I chose to create Adam, and I knew he was going to defy me. I love Adam, and I understand why he did what he did. He meant no harm or disrespect, he only doubted what I (as God) said was true, which is to be expected because I made him that way, capable of doubt. In fact, his autonomy, his capacity for doubt, gives me great joy, for pretty much everything else I (as God) made is really quite mechanical!

Adam did not know what he was doing, but his descendents, over time (a long, long time), will learn more about love.

I know, I am anthropomorphizing, of course. I am projecting. That’s all we can do, Granny, is project.

Oops. Does this mean that the sin was not “mortal” after all? Poke Poke.

Do you remember that I see the creation story as allegory? I know, this view is not in the CCC, I just answered the question with sincerity. So readers, if you want to know what the Church thinks, read the CCC. This is only one sheep’s opinion on the question posed by Granny. It would serve no purpose to determine who is right and who is wrong about God. It would serve a great deal of purpose to follow the spirit of this statement:

“True love does not eliminate legitimate differences, but harmonizes them in a superior unity, which is not imposed from the outside, but gives shape to the whole from inside,”

Pope Benedict

There is a “superior unity” to be found, Granny, it takes inspiration and imagination to find that unity. And remember, the greatest unity is in Eucharist. We can put all opinions aside and break bread together!

Thanks for the question! Have a great day!

 

[Aloysium]

I agree in the sense that scientists, like all people, must conform to God’s will. Science itself is a method of investigation, a method of inquiry. It works, but only for certain questions. Perhaps one of the things of which Francis is reminding the scientists is that science can’t answer all questions. Perhaps another is that there are very important moral values at stake when it comes to how the knowledge acquired through scientific investigations is applied. Yet another might be - if one understands nature to be God’s creation - that a major motivation for even doing science is to better know that creation and thus better know the Creator.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . the greatest unity is in Eucharist. We can put all opinions aside and break bread together! . . .

. . . the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus Christ our Saviour and Redeemer, God incarnate who is Love, the one true Way to eternal happiness.
I trust you weren’t merely suggesting, “We should do lunch.”

 

[grannymh]

Regarding this rather weird question which popped up in this thread.
Why would God’s True Love tolerate the original mortal sin?
I posted this question in another thread simply as an encouragement for some creative thinking about the relationship between God the Creator and Adam the creature.

Thank you OneSheep for bringing the question to this thread and sharing your thoughts in post 444.

From this thread’s logical position, one can offer that Adam’s sin is unique in the sight of the Catholic Church. Unique because it is the very first mortal sin which, by definition, destroys the State of Original Holiness aka the State of Sanctifying Grace. If the sin is unique, then it would take an unique first individual to commit it. Obviously, there is only one unique first human in the Garden. Original Sin could not be an allegory because there was nothing mortally sinful before the first mortal sin. The same reasoning would also remove the allegory concept from the first person Adam.

 

[grannymh]

According to the logic of human nature (Genesis 1: 26-27), Adam definitely knew what he was doing when he intellectively chose to disobey his Creator.

 

[OneSheep]

According to the logic of human nature (Genesis 1: 26-27), Adam definitely knew what he was doing when he intellectively chose to disobey his Creator.

Hi Granny!

Here is the verse:
Genesis 1:26-27English Standard Version (ESV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

So, here is how our conversation will go: You will use Genesis and the CCC to support the notion that Adam and Eve were omniscient, and I will say that in order for anyone to sin in any way, lack of awareness is always a factor. And then, I agree to disagree, and say that there is room in the Church for both views.

Just so we don’t have to burn up pages of this thread.

Have a great weekend! We are having a bunch of college friends over, that we have not seen for a long time, for a “mini-reunion” of our Newman Catholic Fellowship. So, time to clean the house…!

 

[fhansen]

According to the logic of human nature (Genesis 1: 26-27), Adam definitely knew what he was doing when he intellectively chose to disobey his Creator.

The question for myself is, did the consquences of Adam’s sin: exile into a world where the beauty and goodness of creation, along with suffering, evil, and death, are* known*, a world where creation is experienced but experienced without the overt, observable, presence or intervention of it’s Creator, serve any purpose other than to, as is said, reveal the anger of God at Adam?

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny!

Here is the verse:
Genesis 1:26-27English Standard Version (ESV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

So, here is how our conversation will go: You will use Genesis and the CCC to support the notion that Adam and Eve were omniscient,

I can’t even spell omnecent correctly. Perhaps, I have been accidentally confused with someone who is actually intelligent.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Granny!

Here is the verse:
Genesis 1:26-27English Standard Version (ESV)

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

So, here is how our conversation will go: You will use Genesis and the CCC to support the notion that Adam and Eve were omniscient, and I will say that in order for anyone to sin in any way, lack of awareness is always a factor. And then, I agree to disagree, and say that there is room in the Church for both views.

Just so we don’t have to burn up pages of this thread.

Have a great weekend! We are having a bunch of college friends over, that we have not seen for a long time, for a “mini-reunion” of our Newman Catholic Fellowship. So, time to clean the house…!

Onesheep

You maybe interested in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=918073

 

[grannymh]

So, here is how our conversation will go: You will use Genesis and the CCC to support the notion that Adam and Eve were omniscient, and I will say that in order for anyone to sin in any way, lack of awareness is always a factor. And then, I agree to disagree, and say that there is room in the Church for both views.

Just so we don’t have to burn up pages of this thread.

Obviously, there are times when it is best to agree to disagree.

However, this thread in the Apologetics Forum,
“Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?”
asks a very serious question which needs to be answered.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=918073

“Emerging christianity” is one of the many generic descriptions for the idea that there is room in the Catholic Church for everyone’s opposing views.

Going back to post 446, there is this interesting comment. “We should do lunch.”

Perhaps that comment is what some people are actually proposing under a variety of “umbrellas.” There is the impression that it is time to replace certain Catholic doctrines with the concept that love, in different forms, can cover up the results of mortal sins. In other words, fellowship in communion with opposing opinions is so ideal, that subtle attacks against Catholicism tend to be ignored.

By covering up the result of Adam’s mortal disobedience, there is a somewhat logical parade which ends up covering part of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[OneSheep]

Obviously, there are times when it is best to agree to disagree.

However, this thread in the Apologetics Forum,
“Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?”
asks a very serious question which needs to be answered.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=918073

“Emerging christianity” is one of the many generic descriptions for the idea that there is room in the Catholic Church for everyone’s opposing views.

Good morning Granny!

Thanks for adding the thread on emerging christianity, Simpleas linked to a great video with Fr. Rohr’s explanation of Duns Scotus and Franciscan theology concerning atonement.

I think that perhaps “room in the Catholic Church for everyone’s opposing views” is somewhat accurate. If a person has a view that the trinity, for example, makes no sense and God is God is Love and that is that, I see no reason to be impatient with a developing understanding. If a person says “Jesus is not God incarnate, and that is that” and the person is not open to orthodoxy on the issue, then they have no place for teaching in the Church. However, if the person is living life with Christ as his model, and doing good for the community, there is plenty of room for him, is there not? Even if he wasn’t, and wants to be Catholic, who is going to be the first to say that there is no room in the Church for him?

Going back to post 446, there is this interesting comment. “We should do lunch.”

That wasn’t my comment. “Breaking bread together”, my statement, is not irreverent. It means community. The people of Jesus’ time only broke bread together with people considered family and honored guests.

Perhaps that comment is what some people are actually proposing under a variety of “umbrellas.” There is the impression that it is time to replace certain Catholic doctrines with the concept that love, in different forms, can cover up the results of mortal sins. In other words, fellowship in communion with opposing opinions is so ideal, that subtle attacks against Catholicism tend to be ignored.

Let’s see… Are Cardinal Ratzinger’s and Fr. Rohr’s comments on Anselm “covering up the results of mortal sin” or are they in fact showing that the results of “mortal” sin do not involve a debt to pay? Their two books, and yet a third book I have read recently have all made reference to Anselm in this way. So, face it Granny, if the result of mortal sin is a debt, then there are some rather influential people who are not “covering it up”, they are saying that it isn’t there at all. Are you saying that Fr. Rohr, Cardinal Ratzinger, and others are making subtle attacks? Of course not. Please clarify. Who is making a subtle attack?

By covering up the result of Adam’s mortal disobedience, there is a somewhat logical parade which ends up covering part of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I don’t see the logic there, Granny. Please explain the “parade”.

Thanks! We’ll get to the bottom of this yet, or at least allay some fears!

 

[grannymh]

Good morning Granny!

Thanks for adding the thread on emerging christianity, Simpleas linked to a great video with Fr. Rohr’s explanation of Duns Scotus and Franciscan theology concerning atonement.

I think that perhaps “room in the Catholic Church for everyone’s opposing views” is somewhat accurate. If a person has a view that the trinity, for example, makes no sense and God is God is Love and that is that, I see no reason to be impatient with a developing understanding. If a person says “Jesus is not God incarnate, and that is that” and the person is not open to orthodoxy on the issue, then they have no place for teaching in the Church. However, if the person is living life with Christ as his model, and doing good for the community, there is plenty of room for him, is there not? Even if he wasn’t, and wants to be Catholic, who is going to be the first to say that there is no room in the Church for him?

That wasn’t my comment. “Breaking bread together”, my statement, is not irreverent. It means community. The people of Jesus’ time only broke bread together with people considered family and honored guests.

Let’s see… Are Cardinal Ratzinger’s and Fr. Rohr’s comments on Anselm “covering up the results of mortal sin” or are they in fact showing that the results of “mortal” sin do not involve a debt to pay? Their two books, and yet a third book I have read recently have all made reference to Anselm in this way. So, face it Granny, if the result of mortal sin is a debt, then there are some rather influential people who are not “covering it up”, they are saying that it isn’t there at all. Are you saying that Fr. Rohr, Cardinal Ratzinger, and others are making subtle attacks? Of course not. Please clarify. Who is making a subtle attack?

I don’t see the logic there, Granny. Please explain the “parade”.

Thanks! We’ll get to the bottom of this yet, or at least allay some fears!

My dear friend OneSheep,

I am so glad and grateful that you found the thread Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity? in the Apologetics Forum.
It is in that thread where you can name and discuss any doctrine from any of the thousands of Christian Faiths. Some new Faiths may be emerging as we speak.

Once a particular doctrine and its author are established, then we can test it to see if it currently challenges a Catholic doctrine, not here, but in the newer thread “Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging Christianity?”