Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[Bahman]

From DavidV:

If there was no discontent, what would you think the their motive might have been?

From understanding the history, culture and circumstances of the Jewish people at the time the stories were written. Also, from watching people throughout all periods in history (including the present) when it comes to power.

I had only offered possible meanings of the tree, but never said I actually knew the meaning of the tree. The meaning of the tree was actually my question.

Why would Adam do something so counterintuitive if he wasn’t made by his designer to have an appetition for doing such things? To me it means that there had to be either a flaw in our design or a malfunction. One of the two. Take your pick, but either a flaw in the design of a “created” thing or a malfunction of a “created” thing puts culpability right back on the “creator.” If we are created, then we simply function as designed, and anything we do when functioning as designed is the intent of the creator. This includes disobedience. If, however, we do not act as designed, this is a malfunction. Malfunctions are caused by design flaws, or operating the creation under conditions outside the intent of the design, all of which is square on the head of the “creator.”

The whole story is counterintuitive. It makes no sense, unless you’ve had a culture of guilt pounded into you all your life (which we have). The intent of the story was about control and constraint. It was then, it is now, and always will be until people start thinking for themselves.

All the best,
Gary

I hope you enjoy this song.

 

[grannymh]

Why would Adam do something so counterintuitive if he wasn’t made by his designer to have an appetition for doing such things? To me it means that there had to be either a flaw in our design or a malfunction. One of the two. Take your pick, but either a flaw in the design of a “created” thing or a malfunction of a “created” thing puts culpability right back on the “creator.”

I am cutting short the response in this post in order to quickly point out option 3. Apparently, option 3 is so simple that it is often overlooked. That is a shame and a huge waste of time.

Option 3 is to examine and explore human nature per se according to Catholic teachings.

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
CCC 355 “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.” Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in His friendship.

**CCC 1730 **God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to Him.”

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
​

 

[cfauster]

"Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts. "

Indeed, regarding the previous posts’ discussion of what the imago Dei means, I think a big part of imago Dei entails self-awareness, ability to anticipate the consequences of our actions, ability to understand what the implications of our actions are for others in an intuitive sense, etc. I don’t think other animals have those to the same degree, and the degree of difference is so great as to be qualitative rather than merely quantitative (merely a matter of degree). So, while I think the whole of creation groans in anticipation of eventual restoration, I think in a sense Christ died specifically for humans.

That said, the question also becomes, what about disabled humans for which the self-awareness, etc. is diminished? Some thoughtful reflections on that can be found in the latest supplement of the Journal of Religions & Society entitled “Caring for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Ethical and Religious Perspectives.”

 

[davidv]

From DavidV:

If there was no discontent, what would you think the their motive might have been?

Genesis 3:6 records -]two/-] three of them.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

From understanding the history, culture and circumstances of the Jewish people at the time the stories were written. Also, from watching people throughout all periods in history (including the present) when it comes to power.

I had only offered possible meanings of the tree, but never said I actually knew the meaning of the tree. The meaning of the tree was actually my question.

Based on several Bible studies I have participated in, the most basic meaning of the tree is the abiltiy to decide what is good. God’s command indicates that only he has the authority to decide what is good. By disobeying, Adam and Eve essential told God, “No, I get to decide what is good”.

Why would Adam do something so counterintuitive if he wasn’t made by his designer to have an appetition for doing such things? To me it means that there had to be either a flaw in our design or a malfunction. One of the two. Take your pick, but either a flaw in the design of a “created” thing or a malfunction of a “created” thing puts culpability right back on the “creator.” If we are created, then we simply function as designed, and anything we do when functioning as designed is the intent of the creator. This includes disobedience. If, however, we do not act as designed, this is a malfunction. Malfunctions are caused by design flaws, or operating the creation under conditions outside the intent of the design, all of which is square on the head of the “creator.”

Why do you think sin is a malfunction rather than an egotistical free choice?

The whole story is counterintuitive. It makes no sense, unless you’ve had a culture of guilt pounded into you all your life (which we have). The intent of the story was about control and constraint.

I think, based on this comment, that you do not understand the story.

It was then, it is now, and always will be until people start thinking for themselves.

And the story proves that thinking for oneself while ignoring God results in realy bad things.

I think we are fooling ourselves if we prop up the idea of a god who knows everything and created everything and then gets surprised at any of the outcomes. I have heard free will posited as a way out for this idea of god in all this, but it’s really no excuse if you think about it. You and I know what free will does.

Did you know that free will is the essential ingredient necessary for us to love God and neightbor?

Are we saying that the one who created free will didn’t? And if He did, then was not the whole episode in the garden “sucker punch” or a “set up?” If not, what was it? It was either a mistake or it was purely mean.

None of the above.

All the best,
Gary

Regards,

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From DavidV:

Genesis 3:6 records -]two/-] three of them.

Pleasing to the eye, tastes good and a gateway to knowledge. By what magic did Adam and Eve develop a penchant for such things unless it was some inbuilt tendency put there by their designer?

Based on several Bible studies I have participated in, the most basic meaning of the tree is the abiltiy to decide what is good. God’s command indicates that only he has the authority to decide what is good. By disobeying, Adam and Eve essential told God, “No, I get to decide what is good”.

If only God is allowed to know what Is good and what is bad, how could anyone be accountable for doing anything bad, for instance how could they be accountable for being disobedient if only God knew that being disobedient was bad?

Why do you think sin is a malfunction rather than an egotistical free choice?

Well, either it is a malfunction or a free choice, however, you and I both know what the choice would likely be with regard to some tasty fruit that is pleasing to the eye.Why did God not know what the outcome would be if you and I could pretty much figure that out by the time we were 5 or 6 years old?

I think, based on this comment, that you do not understand the story.

I don’t. That is why I am asking you these questions.

And the story proves that thinking for oneself while ignoring God results in really bad things.

The story proves that the world is full of bad things and good things and that people incorporate both good things and bad things into stories. It’s what makes stories interesting.

Did you know that free will is the essential ingredient necessary for us to love God and neightbor?

You would have to explain that to me. I have never known love to be a practical matter that was the result of forethought or deliberation, but I am open to ideas on it.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.
[/INDENT]

Good Evening Granny: I may be made in the image of God, but I am certainly not all knowing, but having watched humans all my life (including myself), I would liken making humanity master over its own acts something akin to giving a drunk the keys to a bulldozer. Why does the Church suppose that God did not see that? I didn’t design humanity or its flaws, but can clearly see them and anticipate the outcomes from the stage set in “the Garden.” Why would something that is all-knowing not know something as simple as that? And if something all-knowing did know, then how very unkind this all is, don’t you think?

Now, I have been called a “Bad Catholic” for asking such questions, but I am suggesting that I am simply an honest Catholic with honest feelings and honest questions. The Genesis story of the fall of humankind makes no sense to me at all.

All the best,
Gary

 

[grannymh]

Good Evening Granny: I may be made in the image of God, but I am certainly not all knowing,

Of course you are not all knowing. Only a granny is all knowing.

Being an image is not the same as being the same. Adam’s human nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. When we use the term spiritual world, we are referring back to the fact that our spiritual soul is in the image of our Spiritual God. When we refer to the material world, we are referring to our decomposing anatomy.

but having watched humans all my life (including myself), I would liken making humanity master over its own acts something akin to giving a drunk the keys to a bulldozer.

Being master of our own acts does not imply that all our chosen acts are good. It simply means that we are capable of choosing and then taking action or no action.

Why does the Church suppose that God did not see that? I didn’t design humanity or its flaws, but can clearly see them and anticipate the outcomes from the stage set in “the Garden.”

I would not call being able to seek God a flaw.

Why would something that is all-knowing not know something as simple as that? And if something all-knowing did know, then how very unkind this all is, don’t you think?

I do not think that living in eternal joy is unkind.

Now, I have been called a “Bad Catholic” for asking such questions, but I am suggesting that I am simply an honest Catholic with honest feelings and honest questions. The Genesis story of the fall of humankind makes no sense to me at all.

Actually, Adam is the one who fell on his own.

All the best,
Gary

I believe that we can have the best conversation ever.

I have a granny-type suggestion. Would you consider starting with the first verses in Genesis which do not make sense to you and I will explain why they make sense, that is, if they really do make sense. Note: there are verses which are beyond me. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

[davidv]

From DavidV:

Pleasing to the eye, tastes good and a gateway to knowledge. By what magic did Adam and Eve develop a penchant for such things unless it was some inbuilt tendency put there by their designer?

Why do you assume magic?
To what penchant are you referring?

If only God is allowed to know what Is good and what is bad, how could anyone be accountable for doing anything bad, for instance how could they be accountable for being disobedient if only God knew that being disobedient was bad?

Why did you change “decide” to “know”? This completely changes my meaning.

Well, either it is a malfunction or a free choice, however, you and I both know what the choice would likely be with regard to some tasty fruit that is pleasing to the eye.

I don’t pretend to know that. How do you know? Where you there? Did you discuss this with Adam?

Why did God not know what the outcome would be if you and I could pretty much figure that out by the time we were 5 or 6 years old?

Why do you assume God didn’t know?

I don’t. That is why I am asking you these questions.

The story proves that the world is full of bad things and good things and that people incorporate both good things and bad things into stories. It’s what makes stories interesting.

It also means that people sometimes choose the good things and sometimes choose the bad things, and there are consequences for both.

You would have to explain that to me. I have never known love to be a practical matter that was the result of forethought or deliberation, but I am open to ideas on it.

Then you are talking about a different love than that which God has for us and expects us to return.

All the best,
Gary

Likewise.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From DavidV:

Why do you assume magic?
To what penchant are you referring?

The penchant for disobeying.

Why did you change “decide” to “know”? This completely changes my meaning.

What is your meaning?

I don’t pretend to know that. How do you know? Where you there? Did you discuss this with Adam?

I don’t know. I am following a process of elimination.

Why do you assume God didn’t know?

I didn’t say God didn’t know. I am saying that If God didn’t know, then God isn’t all knowing, and if He did know, then He isn’t all good. This is a rather simple line of reasoning to follow David. God either blundered us into the world as it is, or he set us up. The third option I can see is that the whole thing is just a story made up by old Jewish men to keep people in line. If there are other options you have to offer, I am happy to consider them. But I cannot see an option where God was all knowing and didn’t see the likelihood of the episode in The Garden before it happened, nor can I see an option where God is all good and did see it coming. Of course none of this has anything to do with God - at least not in my opinion. I think it’s about a being that was made up for the convenience of control and constraint. It doesn’t mean there is no God. It just means the God in the story has nothing to do with it. My opinion.

It also means that people sometimes choose the good things and sometimes choose the bad things, and there are consequences for both.

No doubt.

Then you are talking about a different love than that which God has for us and expects us to return.

I am not an expert on love, but I have always felt that the only real love is love which is freely given without conditions or expectation of a return on investment. That said, I have no idea what God expects. Personally, and I will emphasize that this is my opinion, but I think God might actually just be kicking the can down the road to see where it goes. Which would mean that God has no plan or expectation. He/She/It may just be “checkin’ it out.”

All the best,
Gary

 

[cfauster]

The Genesis story of the fall of humankind makes no sense to me at all.

A couple of Catholic articles I found certainly won’t solve all the problems, but I do think they are worth reading.

the-american-catholic.com/2011/04/11/the-two-trees-of-eden/

catholic.com/magazine/articles/before-sin

 

[cfauster]

If interested, here are a couple more articles that also won’t answer every question, but I find them helpful. Unlike those referenced in my previous post, these are not from a Catholic author.

The Historical-Ideal View of Adam & Eve

Paul and the Fall: What’s It Really About?

 

[cfauster]

Not that anyone is adopting a too-literal reading of Genesis 1-3, but we all know some Christians (primarily some Protestants) who encounter unnecessary problems that way. Origen tried to help his fellow Christians avoid such problems very early in the history of the Church. For example, he wrote:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Origen, First Principles, Book IV, Paragraph 16

 

[grannymh]

If interested, here are a couple more articles that also won’t answer every question, but I find them helpful. Unlike those referenced in my previous post, these are not from a Catholic author.

The Historical-Ideal View of Adam & Eve

Paul and the Fall: What’s It Really About?

I often use Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22 so I started reading the second link… Have you seen any articles by any author that refer to the first three chapters of Genesis as a prime source of information about Original Sin? I believe that the author of those chapters brilliantly discerned the truth about the history of humankind from its beginning.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Not that anyone is adopting a too-literal reading of Genesis 1-3, but we all know some Christians (primarily some Protestants) who encounter unnecessary problems that way. Origen tried to help his fellow Christians avoid such problems very early in the history of the Church. For example, he wrote:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Origen, First Principles, Book IV, Paragraph 16

Thank you CFauster: My view has always been that most of these stories are figurative, and my initial question was what the Fall of Man was about. I have speculation about it being the development of language or agriculture, but I was interested in hearing other ideas on it as well.

Thanks again,
Gary

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning Simpleas: This is a very big subject you bring up. The way I see it, grace does not exist without something or someone to exhibit it. It is an attribute that you and I bring to the world. As for us, we are what we produce. We are the smell of shampoo in hair, sunlight on skin, the sound of breath, kindness, violence, love, hate, thought, and among countless things - grace. If you walk past a person wearing blindfold, you are that which causes air to move. If you are the one wearing the blindfold, you are that which feels the air move. Without living things to produce it and experience it, and perhaps create language to give it syntax, it simply doesn’t exist as anything but a potential. What we do is to collapse potentials into realities, and so it is with grace. These are simply some of the things that make up what we are. We cannot fall from what we are. The pinnacle of all human achievement is to simply be that which we are in the felt presence of immediate experience. When we dream, we dream of experience, when we remember, we remember experience, when we plan, we plan for experience, when we hope, we hope for experience, when we dread, we dread experience. Experience is what we are about, and in partaking in experience, we create the world. None of it happens without you and me, and that includes grace. We are what we create, and we not fall from what we are.

I would think that the way to be without grace is to think that grace is something that can be conferred upon us rather than something we create and something that we are.

All the best,
Gary

Cool, thanks for your thoughts.

I have read a few piece’s here and there about Grace, most saying that Grace is always present, that it can not be earned, we do not make Grace I don’t think, but we can accept and receive Grace if we will it.

Don’t we fall from what we are through sin? We sometimes don’t quite make the mark, and live as we could live? As with Adam, he had the Grace needed to live a holy life, yet he fell from himself. Maybe he forgot that he needed only to accept Grace from God to be able to resist the temptation, he was only human after all.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Cool, thanks for your thoughts.

I have read a few piece’s here and there about Grace, most saying that Grace is always present, that it can not be earned, we do not make Grace I don’t think, but we can accept and receive Grace if we will it.

Don’t we fall from what we are through sin? We sometimes don’t quite make the mark, and live as we could live? As with Adam, he had the Grace needed to live a holy life, yet he fell from himself. Maybe he forgot that he needed only to accept Grace from God to be able to resist the temptation, he was only human after all.

Good Evening Simpleas: I won’t pretend that I know the answers to any of these things, but I can say what I think and feel. I think you’re right about grace. It’s a component of all living things. I think maybe it’s just a matter of whether or not we are overtly displaying it at a given time. I have said before that I don’t imagine that any saint was good every minute of their lives and that no sinner was bad every minute of theirs. We do things we’re happy about and we do things we’re disappointed with.

As for falling from what we are, I think we can come short of where we think we should be, but I also think we should be careful not to let anyone else define where it is we think we should be. You are the only expert on you. I don’t think that the congress, the senate, the judiciary branch, parliament, CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, NASA, the Church or the faculty and staff at Harvard know anything about what is right for you. I think we have to decide what our lives are about and from there, we are either happy with how we played it out or we aren’t. But I think we also have to keep in mind that as humans, we have an impairment that no other creature on this planet has. We all have an itch we can’t scratch, and it’s not the same for everyone. But we all have one. We have to find a way to get at it or a way to let it go. The best way to let it go is to get at it, but if you can’t do that, then you have to find another way to let it go. As long as we have the itch, we are out of synch with the rest of the natural world and I suppose that could be what is meant by missing the mark or sin. For me, sin has been anticipation. On Monday, I anticipate Friday. On Friday I anticipate Saturday. On Christmas Eve, I anticipate Christmas. On a journey, I anticipate the hotel. At the hotel I anticipate the attractions. And then I look back and I say to myself “that was it!” I spent every moment thinking about another moment, and one day it’s going to end while I’m waiting for it to begin.

Just some thoughts.

All the best,
Gary

 

[simpleas]

Good Evening Simpleas: I won’t pretend that I know the answers to any of these things, but I can say what I think and feel. I think you’re right about grace. It’s a component of all living things. I think maybe it’s just a matter of whether or not we are overtly displaying it at a given time. I have said before that I don’t imagine that any saint was good every minute of their lives and that no sinner was bad every minute of theirs. We do things we’re happy about and we do things we’re disappointed with.

As for falling from what we are, I think we can come short of where we think we should be, but I also think we should be careful not to let anyone else define where it is we think we should be. You are the only expert on you. I don’t think that the congress, the senate, the judiciary branch, parliament, CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, NASA, the Church or the faculty and staff at Harvard know anything about what is right for you. I think we have to decide what our lives are about and from there, we are either happy with how we played it out or we aren’t. But I think we also have to keep in mind that as humans, we have an impairment that no other creature on this planet has. We all have an itch we can’t scratch, and it’s not the same for everyone. But we all have one. We have to find a way to get at it or a way to let it go. The best way to let it go is to get at it, but if you can’t do that, then you have to find another way to let it go. As long as we have the itch, we are out of synch with the rest of the natural world and I suppose that could be what is meant by missing the mark or sin. For me, sin has been anticipation. On Monday, I anticipate Friday. On Friday I anticipate Saturday. On Christmas Eve, I anticipate Christmas. On a journey, I anticipate the hotel. At the hotel I anticipate the attractions. And then I look back and I say to myself “that was it!” I spent every moment thinking about another moment, and one day it’s going to end while I’m waiting for it to begin.

Just some thoughts.

All the best,
Gary

Thanks.

My thoughts are some what like yours, I’m thinking everyone has Grace, some people I think are more open to Grace than others, and I believe these people are usually the types that accept people, situations, life as it is and not how they believe it should be. (something I have to work on more!)

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by your examples of sin being anticipation?

Don’t want to de-rail the thread as it is about Adam, maybe you will still answer or maybe it’s for another thread!

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thanks.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by your examples of sin being anticipation?

Hi Simpleas: It was simple really. What I meant is that my biggest sin or misalignment with nature is anticipation rather than engagement in the moment. It’s probably something I picked up from running a business all my life. I always am planning and thinking ahead. I do that because I have to. But what I have noticed is that I have sacrificed a lot of the joys of the moment because I have conditioned myself to think about the next moment. I sort of remind myself of the man who spent his life counting the stars in the story about the Little Prince. In trying to possess the stars and in spending his time counting what he possessed, he missed just letting them go and enjoying them for what they are. For me, that’s a big sin, and it’s the thing I’m working on.

Sorry to derail Adam and Eve.

All the best,
Gary

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas: It was simple really. What I meant is that my biggest sin or misalignment with nature is anticipation rather than engagement in the moment. It’s probably something I picked up from running a business all my life. I always am planning and thinking ahead. I do that because I have to. But what I have noticed is that I have sacrificed a lot of the joys of the moment because I have conditioned myself to think about the next moment. I sort of remind myself of the man who spent his life counting the stars in the story about the Little Prince. In trying to possess the stars and in spending his time counting what he possessed, he missed just letting them go and enjoying them for what they are. For me, that’s a big sin, and it’s the thing I’m working on.

Sorry to derail Adam and Eve.

All the best,
Gary

Hi, I get it now

Sorry I’m a bit dim some times!!

Thanks

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi, I get it now

Sorry I’m a bit dim some times!!

Thanks

You’re not dim - I don’t always explain well.