Please, you first…
Yes, but I was asking Grannymh what she believes the church means by being in communion with God, while on earth.
I already have. But since you’re the one here who’s stated that a certain choice should’ve been “obvious”, I’d think you’d have an answer for why A & E didn’t make that choice.
How are A&E different than us in how they choose?I know why people now choose the non obvious, but we are discussing the first two humans created without sin.
Originally Posted by simpleas forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I know why people now choose the non obvious, but we are discussing the first two humans created without sin.
In my humble opinion.
They were neutral, so to speak, in terms of their wills & overall attraction to God. To put it another way, they didn’t love Him above all else. “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Again, what we’re all here to learn, Adam, Eve, et al, is what A & E didn’t fully grasp in Eden. There’s a reason for man’s exile-beyond mere punishment.
Because they had no inclination to sin. We are told we are born with the O.S, baptism removes this, turning us back towards God, yet we are still inclined to sin, yes we can use our freewill to sin or not, but the wounded nature is sometimes in alittle fight with God’s will.
Yes, the neutral state would be the “good” state, the freedom from a wounded nature and all that involves for mankind.
They loved themselves before Him, for one thing, which is why pride is also known as “inordinate self-love”. We, also, in the reborn state, still often fail to obey the first commandment, attracted to created things above God first and foremost.Yes, the neutral state would be the “good” state, the freedom from a wounded nature and all that involves for mankind.
You say the didn’t love God above all else. Maybe so, I can’t see what else there was to love in their present state/condition.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Sorry Grannymh I have hijacked another of your threads to discuss the theological teaching on original sin, instead of what you had intended this thread to be about.
The first sentence of post 898 contains this.Sorry Grannymh I have hijacked another of your threads to discuss the theological teaching on original sin, instead of what you had intended this thread to be about.
Thanks though, it makes me think
The sensual passions cannot command man’s higher and spiritual powers of intellect and will, although they can entice them as we experience in ourselves, the flesh lusting against the spirit. The act of sin is essentially in the will of a human being. So, though God did not create Adam and Eve with the inclination to sin in their flesh which we call concupiscence and which is an effect of original sin, they had the free will to either obey God’s command of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or not in much the same way, I would say, of whether we choose presently whether we want to obey God’s commandments or to be a follower of Christ. Can we not choose or at least try whether we want to keep God’s commandments or not? It does not appear that God is forcing us too but rather by persuasion with the promise of eternal life and happiness or eternal punishment.
I do not agree that Adam and Eve were created by God in some neutral, limbo state if this is what you are actually saying. We believe, as catholics, that God created Adam and Eve in original justice and holiness and righteousness. They were right before God at some point in their lives before they sinned which can only mean that they loved God above all things. They had sanctifying grace and the theological virtues of which charity is the supernatural virtue by which we love God above all things and our neighbor for His sake. The CCC#378 says “The sign of man’s familiarity with God is that God places him in the garden.”
Then *we *should love God above all things in the baptized, restored state. And yet we still doubt, and stray, even if only in minor ways. I’d submit that the *problem *was that Adam & Eve didn’t yet love God fully enough, didn’t yet know Him fully enough, to acknowledge their need for Him. Love breeds obedience.
Not quite. They didn’t love God enough to begin with to *keep *Him placed higher than themselves, to prevent pride IOW. That’s the missing ticket-that’s what need s to be cultivated in man.
Yes! Remaining in communion with Him is a matter of the *will, *drawn by the recognition-the knowledge- that He is worthy-He is the ultimate Good.There’s a reason why Adam willed wrongly. It’s always been a matter of the will-because love’s a choice. And the greater we will it, the greater our justice.
Unless someone has additional phrasing or a serious objection, I propose that this definition of theology be used. “The study of God and of God’s relation to the world” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition).
Yes, we’ve been discussing the reasons why Adam failed to interact with his Creator appropriately.
Yes, God can personally interact with His human creatures as He is their creator. I would just add that God created us and the rest of creation out of His infinite goodness and love and to communicate His goodness to creatures. The CCC#293 says: “The world was made for the glory of God.” St. Bonaventura explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it,” for God has not other reason for creating than his love and goodness: “Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand.”
You certainly can continue to discuss the reasons why Adam failed to interact with his Creator appropriately. That is really a great discussion. Carry on.Yes, we’ve been discussing the reasons why Adam failed to interact with his Creator appropriately.