Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[simpleas]

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.

Ok thanks for your reply. I wasn’t sure what you meant by:

*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. *
In the preivous post, I see us humans as very much part of the natural world, and I sometimes think our ‘problems’ can be that we tried to separate ourselves from nature/the world in order to see ourselves as ‘higher’ even though we are to a degree, but only in intelligents/reason.

So Eve is the Original sinner? Some how it seems to always boil down to blame anyway. If both had not sinned then we would have been born with the Original grace, and we would still have had to make our own choice with sin. So we can blame the first two for failing to allow us our own original sin.

Also I’m not sure we do re-enact what happened in the garden, because we didn’t make that choice with Adam and Eve, it’s a different sin that was so powerful to break connection with the creator. Yes we can and do disobey, but that is how we are affected due to this inhertied nature.

Thanks again

 

[grannymh]

Ok thanks for your reply. I wasn’t sure what you meant by:

*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. *
In the preivous post, I see us humans as very much part of the natural world, and I sometimes think our ‘problems’ can be that we tried to separate ourselves from nature/the world in order to see ourselves as ‘higher’ even though we are to a degree, but only in intelligents/reason.

So Eve is the Original sinner? Some how it seems to always boil down to blame anyway. If both had not sinned then we would have been born with the Original grace, and we would still have had to make our own choice with sin. So we can blame the first two for failing to allow us our own original sin.

Also I’m not sure we do re-enact what happened in the garden, because we didn’t make that choice with Adam and Eve, it’s a different sin that was so powerful to break connection with the creator. Yes we can and do disobey, but that is how we are affected due to this inhertied nature.

Thanks again

There are some good points in this post and the previous post,

Briefly. Eve may have been first to sin against God’s command, but she is not the Original sinner because she is not the Original human. Adam is the Original human; therefore, his sin carries the original burden of destroying his and Eve’s original relationship with God.

 

[grannymh]

I mean who exactly was Adam? A regular Human with a soul …

… and a regular material anatomy. Adam is body and soul like we are.

and near perfect spiritual contact with the creator,

Adam’s spiritual contact with the Creator is the same as ours when we are in the State of Sanctifying Grace. The only difference is that God gave Adam and Eve additional gifts which enhanced their human nature. These gifts were lost as a result of Adam’s departure from God. Thus, when we inherited Adam’s human nature, those extra gifts were missing.

who was given the sole responsiblity to make a choice which would affect his relationship with the creator and all humanity,

Both Adam and Eve had the responsibility of obedience to God. Because in the first human being, there was all humanity “as one body of one man”, his choice affected not only his relationship with his Creator, it also affected the “state” of human nature which would be naturally transmitted by propagation.

or someone more, a higher human being, almost powerful?

May I respond from the perspective that a human being is a human being. The extra gifts given Adam are not necessary for entrance into heaven. Personally, I think it is free will which makes a human powerful. Free will is part of human nature, Adam’s and ours.

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

I have come across threads that discuss human nature according to most of the definitions in the dictionary. Personally, I have a young, sweet nature which is never cranky. Regardless of how I exaggerate, my human nature remains spiritual soul and material body which does get older and eventually decomposes. My soul remains immortal and I better curb my occasional outbursts of anger because that could lead me into deep spiritual trouble. I hope that gives a start to a discussion.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

: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.

Good Morning Alosium: I think that the idea that your body and your spirit are something different than mine is a perspective that is brought about by sentient experience and viewing things at a certain level. It is also heavily reinforced socially in the belief systems we have been raised in. But I have always seen this differently. When the ocean splashes up against a rocky shore, we see many droplets of water that are individual in the way they are manifest. But when each drop recedes back to the ocean, they are in fact just the ocean. For a brief moment it expressed itself as individual drops. But where are these drops when they merge back with their source? They were never anything but the source, expressing itself in different ways.

The universe we live in is the same way, and we can see how every aspect of the world we live in is an analog of every other component and process. It is fractal in nature. And in the same way that a wave appears to be something in and of itself riding on the surface of the ocean, it is in fact simply what the ocean is doing at the spot where the wave is. Likewise, it seems to me that you and I are simply what the universe is doing a the nexus of space and time where we are sitting. It also appears to me that the very essence of what we are at our core or spiritual level is not something different than our source, which in turn seems to indicate that God is the inmost self of all things, and while individual permutations rise from and return to the earth, they are eternal by nature.

These are my views.

All the best,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

: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.

Good Morning Alosium: I think that the idea that your body and your spirit are something different than mine is a perspective that is brought about by sentient experience and viewing things at a certain level. It is also heavily reinforced socially in the belief systems we have been raised in. But I have always seen this differently. When the ocean splashes up against a rocky shore, we see many droplets of water that are individual in the way they are manifest. But when each drop recedes back to the ocean, they are in fact just the ocean. For a brief moment it expressed itself as individual drops. But where are these drops when they merge back with their source? They were never anything but the source, expressing itself in different ways.

The universe we live in is the same way, and we can see how every aspect of the world we live in is an analog of every other component and process. It is fractal in nature. And in the same way that a wave appears to be something in and of itself riding on the surface of the ocean, it is in fact simply what the ocean is doing at the spot where the wave is. Likewise, it seems to me that you and I are simply what the universe is doing a the nexus of space and time where we are sitting. It also appears to me that the very essence of what we are at our core or spiritual level is not something different than our source, which in turn seems to indicate that God is the inmost self of all things, and while individual permutations rise from and return to the earth, they are eternal by nature.

These are my views.

All the best,
Gary

I am so happy to see both these excellent thought-out posts next to each other in post 518. By applying the principle – willing suspension of disbelief – it is possible to view these posts as the basic or foundational creation stories beginning with Genesis 1: 1-25 directly followed by Genesis 1: 26-28. If I am right – we could slip into the logic of Adam and his spouse being the unique founders of a very unique species roaming natural earth in a super-natural manner.

To me, both posts are based on sentient experience. To the authors and readers, on your mark, get set, go.

Small note about my recent successful breast surgery (cancer) experience. The drain is out and I am hoping that my brain will work better.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . When the ocean splashes up against a rocky shore, we see many droplets of water that are individual in the way they are manifest. But when each drop recedes back to the ocean, they are in fact just the ocean. For a brief moment it expressed itself as individual drops. But where are these drops when they merge back with their source? They were never anything but the source, expressing itself in different ways. The universe we live in is the same way, and we can see how every aspect of the world we live in is an analog of every other component and process. It is fractal in nature. And in the same way that a wave appears to be something in and of itself riding on the surface of the ocean, it is in fact simply what the ocean is doing at the spot where the wave is. Likewise, it seems to me that you and I are simply what the universe is doing a the nexus of space and time where we are sitting. It also appears to me that the very essence of what we are at our core or spiritual level is not something different than our source, which in turn seems to indicate that God is the inmost self of all things, and while individual permutations rise from and return to the earth, they are eternal by nature. . .

I would agree but with a different perspective or perhaps merely way of expressing the same thing.

I would sday that what forms the basis of reality is relationship. The Triune Godhead is perfect relationity - Love.

To speak of a fractal nature is a way of describing the complexity of cosmos. It is the outcome of the relationship between one’s rational soul and the universe in which we participate. On a more basic level, the senses engage with the world from which we have been moulded. A visual universe is a relationship that exists between the mysteries of self and an aspect of the totality that is other.

With respect to persons, we each exist in our moment here and now, having a sense of ourselves. The “I” that I am is at its foundation, identical to the “I” that you are. But you are other to my self as I am other to you. In meditation it all seems one, each one of us a drop of one ocean. In love, we find that we are each unique and irreplaceable. That is why I truly believe in the resurrection. This is far, far more amazing than it appears.

I see God not as my innermost self. Rather it is my relationship with God that is at my foundation. I am a creature in filial relation to Him. He loves me and I yearn to love in the same manner. In love we are united through in a mutual giving - the life He has given me, I try to return through obedience.

 

[simpleas]

… and a regular material anatomy. Adam is body and soul like we are.

Adam’s spiritual contact with the Creator is the same as ours when we are in the State of Sanctifying Grace. The only difference is that God gave Adam and Eve additional gifts which enhanced their human nature. These gifts were lost as a result of Adam’s departure from God. Thus, when we inherited Adam’s human nature, those extra gifts were missing.

Both Adam and Eve had the responsibility of obedience to God. Because in the first human being, there was all humanity “as one body of one man”, his choice affected not only his relationship with his Creator, it also affected the “state” of human nature which would be naturally transmitted by propagation.

May I respond from the perspective that a human being is a human being. The extra gifts given Adam are not necessary for entrance into heaven. Personally, I think it is free will which makes a human powerful. Free will is part of human nature, Adam’s and ours.

I have come across threads that discuss human nature according to most of the definitions in the dictionary. Personally, I have a young, sweet nature which is never cranky. Regardless of how I exaggerate, my human nature remains spiritual soul and material body which does get older and eventually decomposes. My soul remains immortal and I better curb my occasional outbursts of anger because that could lead me into deep spiritual trouble. I hope that gives a start to a discussion.

Forgive me, but you have thrown me off alittle with this statement :

May I respond from the perspective that a human being is a human being. The extra gifts given Adam are not necessary for entrance into heaven. Personally, I think it is free will which makes a human powerful. Free will is part of human nature, Adam’s and ours.

Before sin Adam and Eve had preternatural gifts. One was immortality, they would never had died because they were good and holy. So their nature was different from ours at first creation. We only share their fallen state after sin and procreation. We have never experienced a creation at peace, like they did.

The gifts that they had they did need to be able to see God/heaven did they not? Isn’t that the point of saying these gifts were lost to them when they decided to try and gain knowledge of all?

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*

We have never experienced Adam/Eve’s nature before the fall, so I’m thinking we can only discuss human nature as we learn of it in others and ourselves. I would think that we can identify with freewill in A&E and ourselves, but not how our human nature was before sin, we can only imagine this, improve as best we can our own nature and spiritual being.

 

[grannymh]

We have never experienced Adam/Eve’s nature before the fall, so I’m thinking we can only discuss human nature as we learn of it in others and ourselves. I would think that we can identify with freewill in A&E and ourselves, but not how our human nature was before sin, we can only imagine this, improve as best we can our own nature and spiritual being.

Briefly, immortality did not make Adam’s nature different from the nature of his children. By normal propagation, Adam’s children inherited his anatomy. Immortality was an extra gift which prevented Adam’s natural death from happening. Being good and holy is not connected with being freed from their natural death. That gift of immortality was lost. Human nature remained naturally human as it was inherited from the first natural human.

We need to keep in mind that Adam’s human nature was wounded, not destroyed. This is why it is necessary that Adam is a true historical first human person. It is the continuity between Adam and current humanity which assures us that it is possible, even with a wounded nature, for us to accept God’s invitation to joy eternal in His heavenly presence.

 

[simpleas]

Briefly, immortality did not make Adam’s nature different from the nature of his children. By normal propagation, Adam’s children inherited his anatomy. Immortality was an extra gift which prevented Adam’s natural death from happening. Being good and holy is not connected with being freed from their natural death. That gift of immortality was lost. Human nature remained naturally human as it was inherited from the first natural human.

We need to keep in mind that Adam’s human nature was wounded, not destroyed. This is why it is necessary that Adam is a true historical first human person. It is the continuity between Adam and current humanity which assures us that it is possible, even with a wounded nature, for us to accept God’s invitation to joy eternal in His heavenly presence.

It sounds like you are saying that Adam and Eve’s nature was the same as ours even though we are born with an inclanation to sin and they were created free from sin. I don’t see how the two nature are the same.

They were good and holy up to the moment of sin, then they lost immortality and the other gifts we are born without.

 

[cfauster]

It sounds like you are saying that Adam and Eve’s nature was the same as ours even though we are born with an inclination to sin and they were created free from sin. I don’t see how the two nature are the same.

They were good and holy up to the moment of sin, then they lost immortality and the other gifts we are born without.

Original Sin is a mystery to which I don’t pretend to have the answer, but perhaps thinking of Adam and Eve as “free from sin” or “good and holy” attributes a bit more holiness to them than might be completely accurate. It’s not that God creates sin, but maybe in the process of God creating self-conscious responsible creatures in God’s own image, a certain capacity for sin necessarily came along with that, even for the very first humans. I suspect that God’s complete freedom from sin, for example, is different from the freedom non-human animals have from sin. The animals simply lack the capacity that would be needed for them to be held responsible for their actions. In God’s case, I imagine God’s goodness is so great, that’s why there is no chance of God choosing to act in any way other than good and sinless and holy. In the case of humans, I imagine the capacity for responsible choice is there, but the balance between tendencies to act rightly vs. wrongly is, well, pretty evenly balanced. Had the first humans chosen rightly, I image things would have leaned towards more good choices. I imagine that because they chose the other way, things leaned even more towards wrong choices.

My thinking has been influenced by George Murphy. The following is from one of his essays.

How could a sin committed by the first humans result in a condition in which all later humans are sinners from the beginning of their lives? …

These [first] humans have developed abilities to reason and communicate, and are able in some way to receive and, at least faintly, understand God’s Word, to trust in that Word, and to know and obey God’s will for them. We do not know in what way the expression of God’s will may have come to them, or what command may have corresponded to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge in Genesis. It might have concerned the way in which people should live together, but about that we can only speculate.

These first humans are at the beginning of a road along which God wants to lead them and their descendants to full maturity and complete fellowship with God. In principle, they can follow that road, but it will not be easy. … They can refuse to trust and can disobey what they know, however faintly, is God’s will for them…

 

[wmw]

Here is a description of Original Sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In it it also details the other things lost that Adam had that we did not inherit.

From: newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Here is a description of Original Sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In it it also details the other things lost that Adam had that we did not inherit.

From: newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Good Evening WMW: On death and suffering, I would think that death and suffering have been around as long as there have been beings to experience them. As humans evolved from lower primates, we of course experience the same physical afflictions as our non-human ancestors. I do not believe there was a time when humans didn’t suffer, and as for death, I don’t perceive that in truth there really is such a thing. We come from the earth and return to it, and we are part of the whole. And the whole lives on. With regards to sanctifying grace, I sense that we, as well as all creatures are holy by nature and our grace is evident in our audacity to live. I am a Catholic and I am wholly unrepentant for being alive, and I think if we are honest and we take away the threat of retribution from on high, most people feel the same way. I’m just being honest.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I see God not as my innermost self. Rather it is my relationship with God that is at my foundation. I am a creature in filial relation to Him. He loves me and I yearn to love in the same manner. In love we are united through in a mutual giving - the life He has given me, I try to return through obedience.

Good Morning Aloysium: You mentioned a yearning to love in the same manner. When you say “yearning” does that mean that this is something you’re still working on, and if this is the case, what would you say are the challenges to getting there? If you are already there, can you describe how it feels?

All the best,
Gary

 

[simpleas]

Original Sin is a mystery to which I don’t pretend to have the answer, but perhaps thinking of Adam and Eve as “free from sin” or “good and holy” attributes a bit more holiness to them than might be completely accurate. It’s not that God creates sin, but maybe in the process of God creating self-conscious responsible creatures in God’s own image, a certain capacity for sin necessarily came along with that, even for the very first humans. I suspect that God’s complete freedom from sin, for example, is different from the freedom non-human animals have from sin. The animals simply lack the capacity that would be needed for them to be held responsible for their actions. In God’s case, I imagine God’s goodness is so great, that’s why there is no chance of God choosing to act in any way other than good and sinless and holy. In the case of humans, I imagine the capacity for responsible choice is there, but the balance between tendencies to act rightly vs. wrongly is, well, pretty evenly balanced. Had the first humans chosen rightly, I image things would have leaned towards more good choices. I imagine that because they chose the other way, things leaned even more towards wrong choices.

My thinking has been influenced by George Murphy. The following is from one of his essays.

How could a sin committed by the first humans result in a condition in which all later humans are sinners from the beginning of their lives? …

These [first] humans have developed abilities to reason and communicate, and are able in some way to receive and, at least faintly, understand God’s Word, to trust in that Word, and to know and obey God’s will for them. We do not know in what way the expression of God’s will may have come to them, or what command may have corresponded to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge in Genesis. It might have concerned the way in which people should live together, but about that we can only speculate.

These first humans are at the beginning of a road along which God wants to lead them and their descendants to full maturity and complete fellowship with God. In principle, they can follow that road, but it will not be easy. … They can refuse to trust and can disobey what they know, however faintly, is God’s will for them…

Thank you for your thoughts.

As our teaching describes the first two people as living with original holiness and justice, it is not me that has thought they were holy/good before sin by my own thinking.

We believe Adam and Eve disobeyed a command from God not to do a particular action, for if they did they would die. I’m not clear if the teaching believed death to mean bodily and spiritually at first, I think it believes it to be spiritually, but then we are so used to bodily death, it would be hard to imagine humans living forever.
I read recently from a jewish site that suggested God showed mercy to us by giving us death in our present condition, (being able to act on an evil) because it would be un merciful to allow us to live forever in such pain.

I will take a look at the link you provided, although what is described about the first two sounds more like us after the fall in our progress. Adam and Eve to me would have known much to be able to have made a very important decision.

Thanks

 

[simpleas]

Here is a description of Original Sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia. In it it also details the other things lost that Adam had that we did not inherit.

From: newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

So all that they had before does not make their human/spiritual nature any different from ours?

 

[wmw]

Good Evening WMW: On death and suffering, I would think that death and suffering have been around as long as there have been beings to experience them. As humans evolved from lower primates, we of course experience the same physical afflictions as our non-human ancestors.

I don’t see any conflict with decay, death, and suffering entering into the world at a different time, the first moment of creation, from the sins of Adam that were done in his lifetime. Yet, in God there is a cause that the second be the result of the first. Such is the plan of God able to be in every moment.

I do not believe there was a time when humans didn’t suffer,

I’m myself agnostic about the reality of Eden, it could be a literary devise of description of what might have been without the reality of sin, but the First sin had to be from within the union of God. So, here I go back and forth on its reality or not and what symbolism it echos in actual events.

and as for death, I don’t perceive that in truth there really is such a thing. We come from the earth and return to it, and we are part of the whole. And the whole lives on.

This is an interesting departure from the previous argument from science. I can understand your belief in the oneness with all biology there is a reality to it, but there seems much it overlooks in the enormity of what it is that we humans are and other species. There is the uniqueness of you as a physical living person that I can’t ignore. When you stop living there is a very pronounced change in you that I can’t help but call death for lack of anything else to call it. I will also morn the death of my dog; so, death is a reality with which I must clearly deal.

Also, I think all of this is in some sort of denial of the soul, but you sort of avoid this point. Yet, on the immaterial soul I count your view even more correct in that there is not a death in the sense of an end. How can an eternity in any of the places like hell really be called death or a second death. Of course, all the other places we go heaven, purgatory, or a new earth we don’t call any sort of death.

With regards to sanctifying grace, I sense that we, as well as all creatures are holy by nature and our grace is evident in our audacity to live. I am a Catholic and I am wholly unrepentant for being alive, and I think if we are honest and we take away the threat of retribution from on high, most people feel the same way. I’m just being honest.

Holy by nature - Yes! we agree, but you avoid the unsightly evil we do in the world. Our fully human nature is a holy one, but we have tarnished our splendor and build walls between us and God. We have deviated from our fully holy nature and the complete perfection of the universe. We need Jesus to become His full humanity again.

I call you also to explore the completeness of the theology behind your Catholicism. How it deals with all the realities with which we live.

Yes, the false notion of retribution is a difficult one to dispel and many have not seen past it. Many protestant churches preach it as the only Gospel they understand; So, yes there is much confusion on the idea of a judgmental God. I take this a rather childlike notion of parental punishment which we grow up with, but need to convert to a more complete understanding of a, loving, forgiving, God who is ready to embrace our renewed communion with him. He does not push us from Him with needs of punishment, we supply all the barriers and yet He asks that He may tear them down for us. There is no wrath in His justice. Only respect for our rebellion if we wish to continue it.

Yes, may our honesty and openness continue to flourish!

Happy New Year and 8th day of Christmas!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From WMW:

I don’t see any conflict with decay, death, and suffering entering into the world at a different time, the first moment of creation, from the sins of Adam that were done in his lifetime. Yet, in God there is a cause that the second be the result of the first. Such is the plan of God able to be in every moment.

Good Afternoon WMW: The problem I see with suffering and death coming along after Adam and Eve is that suffering and death were a part of the biological processes attending life long before there were such things as humans, which is what Adam and Eve ostensibly were. My point is that I have reason to believe that humans have always been subject to suffering and death. Also, if we trace the lineages in the Old Testament back to Adam and Eve, it places them as having lived about 6,000 years ago. These things were written before it was known that humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, and there were lots of us, not just two.

I’m myself agnostic about the reality of Eden, it could be a literary devise of description of what might have been without the reality of sin, but the First sin had to be from within the union of God. So, here I go back and forth on its reality or not and what symbolism it echos in actual events.

I’m sure it could be a literary device. I personally think that original sin might be in reference to the development of agriculture or perhaps language,

This is an interesting departure from the previous argument from science. I can understand your belief in the oneness with all biology there is a reality to it, but there seems much it overlooks in the enormity of what it is that we humans are and other species. There is the uniqueness of you as a physical living person that I can’t ignore. When you stop living there is a very pronounced change in you that I can’t help but call death for lack of anything else to call it. I will also morn the death of my dog; so, death is a reality with which I must clearly deal.

The question is what is it that stops living.

Also, I think all of this is in some sort of denial of the soul, but you sort of avoid this point. Yet, on the immaterial soul I count your view even more correct in that there is not a death in the sense of an end. How can an eternity in any of the places like hell really be called death or a second death. Of course, all the other places we go heaven, purgatory, or a new earth we don’t call any sort of death.

I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as a soul. I am offering the idea that there are no souls (plural).

Holy by nature - Yes! we agree, but you avoid the unsightly evil we do in the world. Our fully human nature is a holy one, but we have tarnished our splendor and build walls between us and God. We have deviated from our fully holy nature and the complete perfection of the universe. We need Jesus to become His full humanity again.

I think walls between us and God and perceived rather than real. With regard to good and evil, they are simply the front and back of the same thing. When viewed as a whole, the world simply is.

I call you also to explore the completeness of the theology behind your Catholicism. How it deals with all the realities with which we live.

Theology is the study of concepts and ideas, hence the root words of theology and theory being the same. I have come to rely more on direct experience.

Yes, the false notion of retribution is a difficult one to dispel and many have not seen past it. Many protestant churches preach it as the only Gospel they understand; So, yes there is much confusion on the idea of a judgmental God. I take this a rather childlike notion of parental punishment which we grow up with, but need to convert to a more complete understanding of a, loving, forgiving, God who is ready to embrace our renewed communion with him. He does not push us from Him with needs of punishment, we supply all the barriers and yet He asks that He may tear them down for us. There is no wrath in His justice. Only respect for our rebellion if we wish to continue it.

I agree.

Yes, may our honesty and openness continue to flourish!

Happy New Year and 8th day of Christmas!

Happy New Year and Merry Christmas to you too!

All the best,
Gary

 

[cfauster]

Thank you for your thoughts.

As our teaching describes the first two people as living with original holiness and justice, it is not me that has thought they were holy/good before sin by my own thinking.
…

I will take a look at the link you provided, although what is described about the first two sounds more like us after the fall in our progress. Adam and Eve to me would have known much to be able to have made a very important decision.

Thank you. Indeed, I lost sight of the clear teaching that Adam and Eve were originally created both good and holy.

George Murphy takes a position in between that of the Roman Catholic Church (which is pretty much the same as the Lutheran church) and that of the Eastern Orthodox. Regarding the latter, here is one expression of their position:

“The Fall of Adam and Eve also created an inclination for humanity to move away from God. While Adam and Eve did not possess a mature holiness, they did possess innocence and potential for holiness, which were lost after the Fall.”

I’ll give the source, but please know that this source is pretty biased in favor of Eastern Orthodox and against Roman Catholic. That is not my position, please understand. Anyway, if interested, here’s where I got the above quote:

blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/16/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-brief-comparison/

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as a soul. I am offering the idea that there are no souls . . .

:twocents:

There is a multitude of souls.
One God. One Spirit. One Love.
It is hard to find words that speak to that which is above and beyond us.
The Catechism comes closest to truth from all that I have read.

I will attempt to relate my take on this:

When we gaze into the eyes of our beloved, we do more than see an image of ourselves. While we do mirror each other, we also connect in giving of ourselves.

Metaphorically, we can say that we exist within the ocean of God’s infinite compassion. Lovingly created by Him, all persons in all times exist centered on the eternally blazing Fountain of the Godhead. Time is the journey of our soul back to God.

Home is where we are one body in Christ, in love. The cancer that is sin, by virtue of self-centred acts, damages both sinner and the whole. In giving all we are to God, who creates us, knowing and wanting what is best for us, and to one another, we truly become ourselves. As participants in His church, in doing His will, we achieve true freedom and individuality.

The Saints are united in eternal joy and wonder, surrendering to our Creator, who gives us life.

 

[Bahman]

How the tree of knowledge with a fruit which teach you good and evil could exist? There is nothing like evil! Evil by your definition is the absence of good.