Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[cfauster]

I briefly googled Rev. Richard P. McBrien and found out that he was a source for a “complaint” against Eucharistic Adoration.

I was not aware of that. Thanks for alerting me. I too then googled. Seems he expressed a view that Eucharistic adoration could somehow diminish the partaking of the Eucharist in Holy Communion. In my limited experience with Catholic friends, Eucharistic adoration enriches rather than diminishes their liturgical (both prayer and Communion) life in the Mass.

Getting back to Adam and Eve, Original Sin, and our inheritance from the first humans, what I get from the third misunderstanding McBrien listed is simply that while “personal sin” is something we individually wrongly choose (and thus we individually are both responsible and guilty of such individual sins), Original Sin is a collective guilt we inherit. We personally were not there at the beginning, so are not responsible for making that particular choice, but nonetheless we inherit the situation/consequences/guilt/debt. As Granny noted (in different words), no use crying over spilled milk, because it does not solve the problem. Christ offers redemption. And, as McBrien says, our role is to “ratify” that redemption.

 

[grannymh]

May all of you have a Merry Christmas
as we celebrate the joy of Christ’s birth.



Lorenzo Lotto, 1523

 

[simpleas]

Maybe the real question, which God wants to bring to our attention, is, 'Do we now choose with Adam,? Will each of us, as a singular part of humanity, continue to *prefer ourselves *to God as Adam did? Adam had to choose between life and death, obedience and disobedience, heaven and hell, God and no God. We have the same choice now, but perhaps from an even better vantage point from which to decide, having spent time in exile from our Creator.

Mmmm. Not sure about. Difficult to say I’d choose with Adam as I’ve never met him!

I get your question though, and of course most of us will say we want to do God’s will over our own.
And as life isn’t always that easy to live, making a decision in this time seems far removed from a decision Adam had to make in his time.

 

[simpleas]

Good Evening Granny and company: I am looking or a place to join in, but I can’t tell what we’re trying to establish. Are we starting with the premise that there were two physical people named Adam and Eve from whom we are all descendant?

All the best,
Gary

Hey,

Please join in and share your thoughts.

 

[fhansen]

Mmmm. Not sure about. Difficult to say I’d choose with Adam as I’ve never met him!

I get your question though, and of course most of us will say we want to do God’s will over our own.
And as life isn’t always that easy to live, making a decision in this time seems far removed from a decision Adam had to make in his time.

I don’t think so. Talk is cheap. Especially after receiving the revelation of our faith, every sin we commit is a choice in solidarity with Adam’s choice-or is related in any case.
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

 

[simpleas]

I was not aware of that. Thanks for alerting me. I too then googled. Seems he expressed a view that Eucharistic adoration could somehow diminish the partaking of the Eucharist in Holy Communion. In my limited experience with Catholic friends, Eucharistic adoration enriches rather than diminishes their liturgical (both prayer and Communion) life in the Mass.

Getting back to Adam and Eve, Original Sin, and our inheritance from the first humans, what I get from the third misunderstanding McBrien listed is simply that while “personal sin” is something we individually wrongly choose (and thus we individually are both responsible and guilty of such individual sins), Original Sin is a collective guilt we inherit. We personally were not there at the beginning, so are not responsible for making that particular choice, but nonetheless we inherit the situation/consequences/guilt/debt. As Granny noted (in different words), no use crying over spilled milk, because it does not solve the problem. Christ offers redemption. And, as McBrien says, our role is to “ratify” that redemption.

So we were not there at the time of Adam’s choice to disobey, but we still suffer the consequences of his sin?
Once baptised, this sin of Adam’s is washed away, but the effects are there…
Then we are only responsible for our own personal sin.

We could say there is no point crying over spilled milk (I know that saying very well) what’s done is done. It maybe a case of “Well the first two humans sinned so grievously against God before procreation and therefore all humans are born depraved of the grace the first two had” for most people, and that they are content with this explanation, as many have been for years. I’m uncomfortable with it, not in a way that I think it is wrong, but the “light bulb” hasn’t gone off in my head yet for a clearer understanding of my own spirituality.

Well as it’s nearly Christmas, time is limited for us all as we prepare. Hope to continue with this thread at some point over Christmas.
Thanks

Merry Christmas to all.
:snowing::winter:

 

[grannymh]

So we were not there at the time of Adam’s choice to disobey, but we still suffer the consequences of his sin?
Once baptised, this sin of Adam’s is washed away, but the effects are there…
Then we are only responsible for our own personal sin.

We could say there is no point crying over spilled milk (I know that saying very well) what’s done is done. It maybe a case of “Well the first two humans sinned so grievously against God before procreation and therefore all humans are born depraved of the grace the first two had” for most people, and that they are content with this explanation, as many have been for years. I’m uncomfortable with it, not in a way that I think it is wrong, but the “light bulb” hasn’t gone off in my head yet for a clearer understanding of my own spirituality.

Well as it’s nearly Christmas, time is limited for us all as we prepare. Hope to continue with this thread at some point over Christmas.
Thanks

Merry Christmas to all.
:snowing::winter:

It seems to me that you have been doing bit of studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

 

[grannymh]

Good Evening Granny and company: I am looking or a place to join in, but I can’t tell what we’re trying to establish. Are we starting with the premise that there were two physical people named Adam and Eve from whom we are all descendant?

All the best,
Gary

Technically, we are starting with the premise that two physical people, Adam and his spouse Eve, are the sole biological founders of humankind. What we are doing is to find ways of supporting God in His decision. Those who do not believe in God or in Adam and Eve are welcomed to join our discussion provided that they are respectful toward Catholicism and are charitable in discussions. Everyone has to pay attention to the sticky at the top of this Forum.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/sticky.gif Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

There is a wonderful principle in live theatre known as the “willing suspension of disbelief”. Refer to Google. Its use is appropriate here.

At the beginning of this thread, there are three axioms, truths. We use these as the beginning of our deductive reasoning. Refer to Google, Deductive Method of Reasoning and Inductive vs. Deductive. Here is an interesting link. bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

In this thread, these three premises are not debatable. They can be discussed in separate threads. Because of this thread’s title, Adam and Eve can be properly debated. Personally, I never fail to learn something from a well-conducted debate.

From Post 1. Axioms or Premises that are true.

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.

We use the first three chapters of Genesis as a good source of information. For example. Where are examples that God interacted personally with Adam? Could one of those examples also demonstrate that Adam was intelligent? Could one of those examples support God’s decision to start the human species with a biological population of two?

I also like to cite paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. These do not necessarily have to be studied. If one is curious, citations are presented.

If I remember correctly, you were interested in myths. Maybe ancient myths. Maybe myths in general and what they teach. It is no big deal if a myth came before Genesis. What is interesting in myths …

 

[simpleas]

I don’t think so. Talk is cheap. Especially after receiving the revelation of our faith, every sin we commit is a choice in solidarity with Adam’s choice-or is related in any case.
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

Wasn’t Original sin like no other sin we could commit, even though we think of it as disobedience?

So actually choosing to disobey by our own choice and not with or in Adam.

Yes talk is cheap I agree, we can say all the prayers we like, but our actions speak louder than words.

 

[fhansen]

Wasn’t Original sin like no other sin we could commit, even though we think of it as disobedience?

So actually choosing to disobey by our own choice and not with or in Adam.

Yes talk is cheap I agree, we can say all the prayers we like, but our actions speak louder than words.

Yes, the OS was different in kind, in one sense, because it was the decision to disobey to begin with. It was the decision to follow one’s own will instead of God’s will regarding right and wrong. At the same time it was the first wrong act -based on that decision. Being his own God, the arbiter of right and wrong for himself, the door was now open for man to commit a myriad of other wrongs, following that first one. But the sins that followed serve only as testament to and confirmation of the sinfulness, of the disobedience, of man-of the waywardness of creation vis a vis its creator. And the more we realize this, the more we realize all over again that God really does exist (which is our faith), and that He’s good and wise, having our best interests at heart (which is our hope), then the more we begin to love Him, and justice is fulfilled as we no longer desire sin; we obey for the right reason, because of love, and this has always been God’s purpose in man. Adam didn’t yet recognize the value of love, of God, in Eden.

 

[cfauster]

I think these posts are very helpful. They remind me that our first ancestors started down the wrong road. Yes, there had to be a first step down that road. But the situation that resulted includes many subsequent steps in the wrong direction (away from God). So when we are baptized for the remission of sins, even if before we are old enough to commit any of our own personal sins, we are each beginning our individual journeys back, in the right direction, towards God, thanks all to the merits of Jesus Christ.

A blessed Christmas to all.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Technically, we are starting with the premise that two physical people, Adam and his spouse Eve, are the sole biological founders of humankind. What we are doing is to find ways of supporting God in His decision. Those who do not believe in God or in Adam and Eve are welcomed to join our discussion provided that they are respectful toward Catholicism and are charitable in discussions. Everyone has to pay attention to the sticky at the top of this Forum.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/sticky.gif Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads

There is a wonderful principle in live theatre known as the “willing suspension of disbelief”. Refer to Google. Its use is appropriate here.

At the beginning of this thread, there are three axioms, truths. We use these as the beginning of our deductive reasoning. Refer to Google, Deductive Method of Reasoning and Inductive vs. Deductive. Here is an interesting link. bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

In this thread, these three premises are not debatable. They can be discussed in separate threads. Because of this thread’s title, Adam and Eve can be properly debated. Personally, I never fail to learn something from a well-conducted debate.

From Post 1. Axioms or Premises that are true.

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.

We use the first three chapters of Genesis as a good source of information. For example. Where are examples that God interacted personally with Adam? Could one of those examples also demonstrate that Adam was intelligent? Could one of those examples support God’s decision to start the human species with a biological population of two?

I also like to cite paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. These do not necessarily have to be studied. If one is curious, citations are presented.

If I remember correctly, you were interested in myths. Maybe ancient myths. Maybe myths in general and what they teach. It is no big deal if a myth came before Genesis. What is interesting in myths …

Thank you Granny - I think I understand the question somewhat. I don’t do a lot of deductive reasoning when it to comes to spirituality. I go more for direct experience and intuition. My experience of God is with the world around me, and the creatures I share it with - human, non-human, animate and inanimate. From my perspective it’s all one thing, and the one thing is not separate from God or other than God. And while my experience of God is felt, immediate and intuitive, the conclusions it brings me to also seem to me to stand up to deductive reasoning. To me, the world doesn’t act like a machine or a creation. Those are syntaxes we put on things based on our own way of doing things. To me, the world acts like an organism, and everything is interconnected and codependent. In my world, you and I are not separate things. To me, we are one thing expressed as many, and the one thing is not a creation of God nor separate from God. This is why it’s important to take care what we do to the least of our brothers, because Christ is the vine and we are the branches. In truth, the vine a not something separate from the branches. A vine is just a central axis that supports its radiating arms or branches. and this is why God is never far.

And I don’t hear this message from any pulpits, and I have reasoned that it may be because it is more comfortable to have a beneficent hand overseeing things and having control over final outcomes. But the view that requires an overseer who is not an active participant engaged right here at the ground level is rather contrary to my own direct observations of myself, the world around me and of God. If I apply my best ability to reason to the idea that we are all descendent from an original couple, I have to conclude that it is more likely that we followed the same progression of development as all other life, and I don’t see anything unholy in that. In fact, it’s rather miraculous I think.

This is just some of my thinking on the matter Granny, and it’s based on my own direct experience and not offered as anything anyone else should believe. I think everyone should go and see for themselves.

All the best and Merry Christmas,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

Thank you Granny - I think I understand the question somewhat. I don’t do a lot of deductive reasoning when it to comes to spirituality. I go more for direct experience and intuition. My experience of God is with the world around me, and the creatures I share it with - human, non-human, animate and inanimate. From my perspective it’s all one thing, and the one thing is not separate from God or other than God. And while my experience of God is felt, immediate and intuitive, the conclusions it brings me to also seem to me to stand up to deductive reasoning. To me, the world doesn’t act like a machine or a creation. Those are syntaxes we put on things based on our own way of doing things. To me, the world acts like an organism, and everything is interconnected and codependent. In my world, you and I are not separate things. To me, we are one thing expressed as many, and the one thing is not a creation of God nor separate from God. This is why it’s important to take care what we do to the least of our brothers, because Christ is the vine and we are the branches. In truth, the vine a not something separate from the branches. A vine is just a central axis that supports its radiating arms or branches. and this is why God is never far.

And I don’t hear this message from any pulpits, and I have reasoned that it may be because it is more comfortable to have a beneficent hand overseeing things and having control over final outcomes. But the view that requires an overseer who is not an active participant engaged right here at the ground level is rather contrary to my own direct observations of myself, the world around me and of God. If I apply my best ability to reason to the idea that we are all descendent from an original couple, I have to conclude that it is more likely that we followed the same progression of development as all other life, and I don’t see anything unholy in that. In fact, it’s rather miraculous I think.

This is just some of my thinking on the matter Granny, and it’s based on my own direct experience and not offered as anything anyone else should believe. I think everyone should go and see for themselves.

All the best and Merry Christmas,
Gary

My own personal opinion is that the author of the first three chapters of Genesis was an astute philosopher with a bit of scientific savvy.

At this point, it could be possible that the Genesis philosopher considered what Gary Sheldrake said in post 506 with the exception of the direct reference to Christ.
“To me, the world acts like an organism, and everything is interconnected and codependent. In my world, you and I are not separate things. To me, we are one thing expressed as many, and the one thing is not a creation of God nor separate from God. This is why it’s important to take care what we do to the least of our brothers, because Christ is the vine and we are the branches.”

In those ancient times, the Genesis philosopher could have seen the world about him as one fascinating environment. He did express the oneness of creation in Genesis 1: 1-25 by attributing the oneness, the complete unity, to a source which was also one, that is, the One God. Because of the distinct separation between physical environment and living organisms, the author reasoned that the physical universe of sky and earth could not bring into existence living organisms such as the living creatures listed in Genesis 1: 20-25. “Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures.” The simple word teem speaks of dynamic action. Notice the dramatic shift to the unique human species in Genesis 1: 26.

While I can walk with you in the view that everything is interactive and codependent, my curiosity does not let me stop there. Humans need to eat what our environment offers. Yet, the marvelous environment does not bring humans into existence.

Is it possible to give our world a both-and explanation such as the world is both an intelligible unity and a composite of separate components?

What could the longer story of Adam possibly signify?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . To me, the world acts like an organism, and everything is interconnected and codependent. In my world, you and I are not separate things. To me, we are one thing expressed as many, and the one thing is not a creation of God nor separate from God. This is why it’s important to take care what we do to the least of our brothers, because Christ is the vine and we are the branches. In truth, the vine a not something separate from the branches. A vine is just a central axis that supports its radiating arms or branches. and this is why God is never far. . .

:twocents:

Whatever else, the world is an organism, but of a different order than the organism that is my body.
For want of a better way to express this, the cells within me are contained in my soul. They are one in the unity that I am.
This is not the nature of the world.
While we transform its substance into ourselves and thereby are materially consistent with it, there does exist an inner and outer as far as being is concerned.
(BTW: Maybe less so for Italians, but most of us take the miracle of eating for granted - quite the remarkable innovation at the beginnings of life.)

And, my being is separate from yours.
We do share in a common humanity, but that means we share in being individual persons, relational in nature as self-and-other.
Although separate, we are united when we give of ourselves to one another.
This unity is not a basic reality of our being, because this potential(?) is what was shattered when we first committed sin.
We are united in Christ. It is our purpose here to become Christ-like, to be loving expressions of humanity.
It is in doing so that we are connected to the Vine.

God is never far because He is Love.
That love is seen in His being a Trinity of Divine Persons in one God.
His becoming one of us in Jesus enables us to enter into that holy union of Love.

 

[simpleas]

:twocents:

Whatever else, the world is an organism, but of a different order than the organism that is my body.
For want of a better way to express this, the cells within me are contained in my soul. They are one in the unity that I am.
This is not the nature of the world.
While we transform its substance into ourselves and thereby are materially consistent with it, there does exist an inner and outer as far as being is concerned.
(BTW: Maybe less so for Italians, but most of us take the miracle of eating for granted - quite the remarkable innovation at the beginnings of life.)

And, my being is separate from yours.
We do share in a common humanity, but that means we share in being individual persons, relational in nature as self-and-other.
Although separate, we are united when we give of ourselves to one another.
This unity is not a basic reality of our being, because this potential(?) is what was shattered when we first committed sin.
We are united in Christ. It is our purpose here to become Christ-like, to be loving expressions of humanity.
It is in doing so that we are connected to the Vine.

God is never far because He is Love.
That love is seen in His being a Trinity of Divine Persons in one God.
His becoming one of us in Jesus enables us to enter into that holy union of Love.

Hi, just so I can try to understand how it is you view how we all became fallen in Adam as one humanity, can you add anymore to :

And, my being is separate from yours.
We do share in a common humanity, but that means we share in being individual persons, relational in nature as self-and-other.

As you said in an earlier post :

The choice that we made as one humanity in Adam,
in one moment and in all moments,
the choice that put ourselves ahead of God,
which refused to return in love, trust and obedience that is our filial response to the love given us,
that choice remains in each and everyone of us; it is our choice.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, just so I can try to understand how it is you view how we all became fallen in Adam as one humanity, can you add anymore to :

*And, my being is separate from yours. *
We do share in a common humanity, but that means we share in being individual persons, relational in nature as self-and-other.

As you said in an earlier post :

*The choice that we made as one humanity in Adam, *
in one moment and in all moments,
*the choice that put ourselves ahead of God, *
which refused to return in love, trust and obedience that is our filial response to the love given us,
that choice remains in each and everyone of us; it is our choice.

Thanks.

Please refer to post 491, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12587752&postcount=491

 

[Aloysium]

Hi, just so I can try to understand how it is you view how we all became fallen in Adam as one humanity, can you add anymore to :

Originally Posted by Aloysium

Seems I have to put on my thinking cap and try to understand what I was trying to say.
This is the short version of my interpretation.
Check out the Catechism if you want the truth stated clearly as it has been revealed.

The way I see it is that we are all human, whatever form we come in.
That essential quality has to do with spirit, which requires a specific body in order to express its capacities.
It is not the body, but the spirit that defines us as human.
And, that spirit is relational in that we are not things disconnect from each other and the world.

The issue of sin has to do with what happens in our relationships.
Part of my response has to do with my not liking to hear people blame Adam for their own sinfulness.
Every time we sin, we re-enact what happened in the Garden

Except for Mother Mary, we are all sinners. Full of grace, like Eve, she in contrast says, “Let it be done to me according to your word.”
As Eve led us away from God, Mary leads us back.
Through Eve, sin entered into humanity and we became Adam; through Mary’s choice we can grow in Christ, in Love.

It has to do with something like that. It’s a mystery, and as arrogant as I am, I don’t think i can add much to what the Church teaches.

 

[cfauster]

At the beginning of this thread, there are three axioms, truths. We use these as the beginning of our deductive reasoning. Refer to Google, Deductive Method of Reasoning and Inductive vs. Deductive. Here is an interesting link. bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html

Indeed, both inductive and deductive reasoning are used in many areas of inquiry, including science and natural theology. I don’t mean to distract here, so please understand that I’m not saying this thread is about natural theology, let alone science. I’m just responding to two posts together here: 1) the above-quoted portion of a post from Granny and 2) a recent post in which Gary Sheldrake mentioned that he does not do a lot of deductive reasoning when it to comes to spirituality.

I wonder if Gary’s reasons in any sense parallel G.K. Chesterton’s approach to natural theology, where Chesterton says:

“Numbers of us have returned to [the Christian faith]; and we have returned to it not because of this argument or that argument, but because the theory, when it’s adopted, works out everywhere, because the coat; when it’s tried on, fits in every crease. We put on the theory like a magic hat, and history becomes translucent like a house of glass.”

In other words, as C. S. Lewis put it: “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.”

Again, as Granny says, this thread is about deductively exploring the implications of Adam and Eve being the sole biological as well as theological ancestors of all humanity. When it comes to the biological part of that monogenism, I have to practice the “willing suspension of disbelief” that Granny also recommended as useful for this thread. I don’t mind doing so, because I’ve found much of theological value in this discussion. And I don’t mind using deductive reasoning when asked. I’m just noting that when it comes to certain kinds of theology and certain kinds of science, inductive reasoning also has its place. This is explored a bit more in an essay from which both the Chesterton and Lewis quotes come:
biologos.org/blog/big-picture-or-big-gaps-why-natural-theology-is-better-than-intelligent-des

 

[grannymh]

Indeed, both inductive and deductive reasoning are used in many areas of inquiry, including science and natural theology. I don’t mean to distract here, so please understand that I’m not saying this thread is about natural theology, let alone science. I’m just responding to two posts together here: 1) the above-quoted portion of a post from Granny and 2) a recent post in which Gary Sheldrake mentioned that he does not do a lot of deductive reasoning when it to comes to spirituality.

I wonder if Gary’s reasons in any sense parallel G.K. Chesterton’s approach to natural theology, where Chesterton says:

“Numbers of us have returned to [the Christian faith]; and we have returned to it not because of this argument or that argument, but because the theory, when it’s adopted, works out everywhere, because the coat; when it’s tried on, fits in every crease. We put on the theory like a magic hat, and history becomes translucent like a house of glass.”

In other words, as C. S. Lewis put it: “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.”

Again, as Granny says, this thread is about deductively exploring the implications of Adam and Eve being the sole biological as well as theological ancestors of all humanity. When it comes to the biological part of that monogenism, I have to practice the “willing suspension of disbelief” that Granny also recommended as useful for this thread. I don’t mind doing so, because I’ve found much of theological value in this discussion. And I don’t mind using deductive reasoning when asked. I’m just noting that when it comes to certain kinds of theology and certain kinds of science, inductive reasoning also has its place. This is explored a bit more in an essay from which both the Chesterton and Lewis quotes come:
biologos.org/blog/big-picture-or-big-gaps-why-natural-theology-is-better-than-intelligent-des

I can tell that this granny’s body and mind is recovering from the shock of cancer surgery, (thank you all for successful prayers) because I am curious about natural theology. My required theology class at a Jesuit university coincided with my nap time.

Thank you Cfauster (and others) for practicing the “willing suspension of disbelief”. In turn, I will try to practice the both - and principle which would include the Alister McGrath link where I landed instead of the link you provided. This link was titled “What Are We to Make of Adam and Eve?” When I finally printed out “Big Picture or Big Gaps? Why Natural Theology is better than Intelligent Design” I started with page 4 (I am directionally challenged in many ways), and found this amazing sentence.
“What elicits our excitement; our sense of wonder is the big picture.”

 

[simpleas]

Please refer to post 491, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12587752&postcount=491

Thanks, I did read it before and I have read it again now.

When thought of as we all made the choice with Adam is suggested I start drifting off down another path of thought.

I mean who exactly was Adam? A regular Human with a soul and near perfect spiritual contact with the creator, who was given the sole responsiblity to make a choice which would affect his relationship with the creator and all humanity, or someone more, a higher human being, almost powerful?

I’m quite interested in developing discussion on your statement :

What I have been hoping to do was to establish the nature of Adam and proceed somewhat logically to what can and what cannot happen to that nature