Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?”
I’m sorry, granny, but I don’t consider Cardinal Ratzinger, John Duns Scotus, or Fr. Rohr “emerging Christianity”, and I cannot speak for “emerging Christianity” because I know so little about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

I am thinking of perhaps a new thread about atonement, comparing and contrasting this:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

with this:

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

In light of this:

“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

And yes, perhaps the apologetics forum would be the best place for it. What do you think?

God Bless your day:)
 
I’m sorry, granny, but I don’t consider Cardinal Ratzinger, John Duns Scotus, or Fr. Rohr “emerging Christianity”, and I cannot speak for “emerging Christianity” because I know so little about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

I am thinking of perhaps a new thread about atonement, comparing and contrasting this:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

with this:

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

In light of this:

“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

And yes, perhaps the apologetics forum would be the best place for it. What do you think?

God Bless your day:)
My dear friend OneSheep 😃

No need to be concerned about emerging Christianity. There are lots of Catholics who can spot a serious challenge to Catholic doctrines in any neighborhood.
As for starting threads, that is your choice.👍
 
I’m sorry, granny, but I don’t consider Cardinal Ratzinger, John Duns Scotus, or Fr. Rohr “emerging Christianity”, and I cannot speak for “emerging Christianity” because I know so little about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

I am thinking of perhaps a new thread about atonement, comparing and contrasting this:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

with this:

catholic.com/encyclopedia/doctrine-of-the-atonement

In light of this:

“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

And yes, perhaps the apologetics forum would be the best place for it. What do you think?

God Bless your day:)
These links and others could be discussed here ::

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

As the thread is asking about doctrines that are being thought of differently.

Maybe we could discuss atonement etc in that thread?

Thanks 😃
 
My dear friend OneSheep 😃

No need to be concerned about emerging Christianity. There are lots of Catholics who can spot a serious challenge to Catholic doctrines in any neighborhood.
As for starting threads, that is your choice.👍
So, I quoted both Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Rohr, who both contested Anselm for the same reason. Are there a lot of Catholics you know who find their words on atonement a serious challenge?

If so, perhaps it is time to “shake a few trees”!🙂

Stay tuned…

Thanks.🙂
 
Back to Adam and Logic 😃
  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.
The above three points are based on the attributes commonly given to God. Points 1. and 2. are standard considering that God is the Creator in the fullest sense. (CCC 279 begins the teachings on "The Creator) Point 3 is understandable because of the powers attributed to God.

Of course, we know that we are individuals. But why would God interact personally with each one of us?
 
  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.
The above three points are based on the attributes commonly given to God. Points 1. and 2. are standard considering that God is the Creator in the fullest sense. (CCC 279 begins the teachings on "The Creator) Point 3 is understandable because of the powers attributed to God.

Of course, we know that we are individuals. But why would God interact personally with each one of us?
Well, according to your logic, it’s because He brings us into existence and maintains our existence. Apparently He must interact personally if #2 is true.
 
Well, according to your logic, it’s because He brings us into existence and maintains our existence. Apparently He must interact personally if #2 is true.
Thank you.

Why must God interact personally with a particular creature which He has brought into existence? What is it about us that demands that God interacts personally at our conception?
 
Hi!

I explained in my post 456 why the atonement discussion does not belong in the “emerging Christianity” thread.

Did you know that your PM box is full, little-Miss-popular?😃
Ok that is your opinion 🙂

Yeah I have emptied it now 😃

👍
 
Why must God interact personally with a particular creature which He has brought into existence? What is it about us that demands that God interacts personally at our conception?
The foundation for the answer is Genesis 1; 26-27.
One cannot get more literal than “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” It is because of our complete human nature, body and soul, that we can share, by knowledge (rational intellect) and love (free will) in God’s own life. (Information source. CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730-1732)

I have always wanted to use the deductive method of learning truths to demonstrate why God did not choose to “ensoul” a number of subhumans within an ancient population.

Am I the only one with this idea? ? ?
 
. . . Am I the only one with this idea? ? ?
Nope. It can feel that way, taking in what comes through the media.

:twocents:

Ontologically we are one humanity, sharing in the same basic nature.
We are all an individual “me” - one of the qualities that define us as human beings, enabling us to exist in relation to each another and with God.
This is the reality of who we are now.
We exist in time, so at some point, this eternal, unchanging and given, reality of what is human must have started.
It seems logical to think that it started with one man since each of us is one person.
We think in words, symbols and images that communicate.
Within our individual consciousness are the means by which we can come to know each other, to love each other.
We are all one body in love, but separated, fragmented and coming into conflict by sin.
It must be remembered that God has brought all this into being through His Word and that it is the Holy Spirit who mantains this in existence.
This makes anything possible; and, the very real fact is that science is limited in what it can describe and understand.
This is the case here. The only reliable and valid source in this regard, as far as I can discern, is what the Church teaches.
 
God made humans in the image and likeness of “himself”. Humans have since tried to be God.
 
God made humans in the image and likeness of “himself”. Humans have since tried to be God.
Adam made in the image and likeness of God, tried to be a God, going it alone, with the help of Satan, who tricked him by lying to him. Being in the image and likeness of God, Adam wanted to become…a God.

We too are made in the image and likeness of God, yet we don’t think I want to be a God, but that we would strive to be holy. We know our place as humans, that we can’t “step up the ladder” without God’s help.
 
Nope. It can feel that way, taking in what comes through the media.

:twocents:

It seems logical to think that it started with one man since each of us is one person.We are all an individual “me” - one of the qualities that define us as human beings, enabling us to exist in relation to each another and with God.
This is the reality of who we are now.
We exist in time, so at some point, this eternal, unchanging and given, reality of what is human must have started.
It seems logical to think that it started with one man since each of us is one person.
We think in words, symbols and images that communicate.
Within our individual consciousness are the means by which we can come to know each other, to love each other.
We are all one body in love, but separated, fragmented and coming into conflict by sin.
It must be remembered that God has brought all this into being through His Word and that it is the Holy Spirit who mantains this in existence.
This makes anything possible; and, the very real fact is that science is limited in what it can describe and understand.
This is the case here. The only reliable and valid source in this regard, as far as I can discern, is what the Church teaches.
Please be patient with this cranky granny. Using the deductive method of reasoning, I would like to first pull out those ideas, from post 467, which would be considered axioms or truths.

Recall that the first principle of natural science is to observe without prejudice.

We do observe that ontologically we are one humanity because we share in the same basic nature. The science of genetics, that is our DNA, confirms that we are a single human species. We are the sole extant hominin according to our decomposing anatomy.

Thus, the first truth or first reality is that we are an unique peerless species. This observable truth does not contradict the first two basic truths in opening post 1.
  1. God as Creator exists.
    Therefore,
  2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
We know that we humans exist which is natural science’s observe without prejudice principle. Since we did not create ourselves, we know that a Creator God exists. Because only a supreme Creator can create, we credit God with bringing us into existence and maintaining our existence. Obviously, that is an amazing interaction on the part of the Creator. Note: the nitty-gritty of God’s interaction of our creation is not totally explained, but we can live with that.

So far, so good?

From Aloysium’s post 467
“It seems logical to think that it started with one man since each of us is one person.”

My first reaction was to dismiss that logic.:o So I tiptoed back to square one. First sentence of post 467.
“Ontologically we are one humanity, sharing in the same basic nature.”

We know we are human. Though there are times early in the morning that I am not quite sure that I am human enough to get out of bed. :yawn: And my one wish is to :takethat:

Interestingly, both science and Catholicism present a clarification of our nature. How should we handle their approaches …logically?
 
. . . The science of genetics, that is our DNA, confirms that we are a single human species. We are the sole extant hominin according to our decomposing anatomy. . . .

From Aloysium’s post 467
“It seems logical to think that it started with one man since each of us is one person.”

My first reaction was to dismiss that logic.:o So I tiptoed back to square one. First sentence of post 467.
“Ontologically we are one humanity, sharing in the same basic nature.”

We know we are human. Though there are times early in the morning that I am not quite sure that I am human enough to get out of bed. :yawn: And my one wish is to :takethat:

Interestingly, both science and Catholicism present a clarification of our nature. How should we handle their approaches …logically?
I’m not sure I am addressing your concerns, but I’m going to put forth these thoughts:

DNA does not confirm we are one humanity, imho.
It is a supremely complex molecule that is seen in as many forms as there are people and creatures.
It’s a bit complicated and I am not sure I can explain it well.
We share a quarter of our DNA with yeast, 98% with chimpanzees.
There are variations among DNA molecules which account for our coming in various shapes and sizes; and, of these variations, we share 50% with first degree relatives, less with more distant relations.
DNA is one part of the mechanism that regulates, that is our physical being.
It does not define us, since human beings can have trisomys and other conditions such as Turner’s where there is only one x chromosome.

I am conversing with you in a public forum about what it means to be human.
This ability to conceptualize, this actual activity of communication, the identity, prespective, understanding, feelings that constitute who we are as persons in relation to what is other, makes us human.
It’s easier perhaps to talk about pain because it so clearly describes our individual being; we all feel pain and that pain reaches into the depths of our individual existence.
We can feel alone in our individual suffering, or through it, come to see ourselves as all united in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Our reason using the lens of physical interaction, comes up with a certain picture of who, or rather what we are. The lens of mind presents us with something very, very different. That of the spirit may be understood as encompassing a lens of mind in that it involves relationships, cognition and meaning, but at a more profound level, reflecting the reality of the difference between an animal and human soul.

The reality is that here we are. That mystery remains regardless of the many ways in which one can approach the complexity of what is essentially simple - this is what it is, and it is AMAZING!!
 
I’m not sure I am addressing your concerns, but I’m going to put forth these thoughts:

DNA does not confirm we are one humanity, imho.
As far as I can tell, the 25,000 or 30,000 genes which make up human DNA determine the human species as a single species. Being a single species, we can be seen as one humanity. We share similar genes with other vertebrates; yet, our anatomies are not in the same species classification as other vertebrates. In fact, vertebrates are broken down into individual species classifications. I love the huge drawings when vertebrates are googled.
It is a supremely complex molecule that is seen in as many forms as there are people and creatures.
It’s a bit complicated and I am not sure I can explain it well.
We share a quarter of our DNA with yeast, 98% with chimpanzees.
There are variations among DNA molecules which account for our coming in various shapes and sizes; and, of these variations, we share 50% with first degree relatives, less with more distant relations.
DNA is one part of the mechanism that regulates, that is our physical being.
It does not define us, since human beings can have trisomys and other conditions such as Turner’s where there is only one x chromosome.
I do have my doubts about some of the comments regarding human DNA. However, I do not want to get tangled in major discussion about research.
I am conversing with you in a public forum about what it means to be human.
This ability to conceptualize, this actual activity of communication, the identity, prespective, understanding, feelings that constitute who we are as persons in relation to what is other, makes us human.
It’s easier perhaps to talk about pain because it so clearly describes our individual being; we all feel pain and that pain reaches into the depths of our individual existence.
We can feel alone in our individual suffering, or through it, come to see ourselves as all united in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Our reason using the lens of physical interaction, comes up with a certain picture of who, or rather what we are. The lens of mind presents us with something very, very different. That of the spirit may be understood as encompassing a lens of mind in that it involves relationships, cognition and meaning, but at a more profound level, reflecting the reality of the difference between an animal and human soul.

The reality is that here we are. That mystery remains regardless of the many ways in which one can approach the complexity of what is essentially simple - this is what it is, and it is AMAZING!!
This is a good demonstration of our rational being. This is why we are a peerless species. In my opinion, being a peerless species leads to the fact that we are a single unique species.

I would think that the next step is to name the human elements which make us human. To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans. I believe that philosophers start with our intellective abilities. This granny wants to start with free choice over our actions.
 
View attachment 21091

Persons here, proclaim their existence and identity as a members of humanity.

Hands that mold creation into tools and artifacts,
enable us to feed, transforming the environment into ourselves,
hands that caress and kill,
that make us who we are in this world
reach out to all humanity through time.

Long ago in a cave, persons sought to transmit a message to man and God - an imprint establishing a lasting record of their being.

We talk about Homo sapiens; I would consider Homo spiritualis or Homo charitativus better descriptive names for us.
Science, which cannot by its methods study the soul, can at least, through the gathering of artifacts, speak of Homo religiosus.
 
As far as I can tell, the 25,000 or 30,000 genes which make up human DNA determine the human species as a single species. Being a single species, we can be seen as one humanity. We share similar genes with other vertebrates; yet, our anatomies are not in the same species classification as other vertebrates. In fact, vertebrates are broken down into individual species classifications. I love the huge drawings when vertebrates are googled.

I do have my doubts about some of the comments regarding human DNA. However, I do not want to get tangled in major discussion about research.

This is a good demonstration of our rational being. This is why we are a peerless species. In my opinion, being a peerless species leads to the fact that we are a single unique species.

I would think that the next step is to name the human elements which make us human. To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans. I believe that philosophers start with our intellective abilities. This granny wants to start with free choice over our actions.
Bare with me…

To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans.

Fully complete with matter and a soul, but without the divine gifts that give us full control over our choices, and which would take us to a higher level of being, almost God like.

Did God wish/wishes, that we become divine?

If Adam and Eve had the gifts, then God must have wanted them to become divine.

There must have been a fault in their DNA…😃
 
Bare with me…

To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans.

Fully complete with matter and a soul, but without the divine gifts that give us full control over our choices, and which would take us to a higher level of being, almost God like.
Before we accidentally lose sight of some Catholic teachings, I need to stop in the middle of this post 474

I would appreciate some kind of clarification about these sentences in relationship to the real Adam. Thank you.
Bare with me…

To me, this would lead to the proposition that we descended from two fully-complete humans.

Fully complete with matter and a soul, but without the divine gifts that give us full control over our choices, and which would take us to a higher level of being, almost God like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top