Adam & Logic, 2nd Edition

[grannymh]

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.”

Good addition. Thank you.

I think that some, not all, people bypass the theological truth that God created us and the rest of creation out of His infinite goodness and love. There have been some horrible accusations against God because the beginning of human history included the freely chosen act of Original Sin.

 

[wmw]

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.

…can lead to a literal Original Sin…

Could and maybe’s is what you are trying to reach?

Is 3. also a could and maybe; if He wants and we want?

Is a “literal Original Sin” just one criteria? No, I think it’s one act with many criteria.
What is the criteria for an act being the “literal Original Sin”?
How does 1. 2. & 3. cause these criteria to be met?

I think there are many more steps needed before most people would say, Oh, I see how O.S. flows right out of the logic.

If these are the axioms what are the steps of logic to reach this result?

 

[grannymh]

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.

…can lead to a literal Original Sin…

Is a “literal Original Sin” just one criteria? No, I think it’s one act with many criteria.
What is the criteria for an act being the “literal Original Sin”?
How does 1. 2. & 3. cause these criteria to be met?

I think there are many more steps needed before most people would say, Oh, I see how O.S. flows right out of the logic.

If these are the axioms what are the steps of logic to reach this result?

 

[grannymh]

Three initial axioms from post 913

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.

…can lead to a literal Original Sin…

Could and maybe’s is what you are trying to reach?

Is 3. also a could and maybe; if He wants and we want?

Axioms 1, 2, 3 are simple general truths taught by the Catholic Church.
Point 3 can refer to a variety of interactions starting with the creation of our spiritual soul which flows from point 2. Since God is all powerful (necessary for point 1) points 2 and 3 are actual truths according to the Catholic Church.

Practically speaking, points 1, 2, and 3, are intimately connected. Because I am coming from the teachings of the Catholic Church, I do not have to defend points 1, 2, 3 individually. I do not have to re-invent the wheel.

Following where the three points lead is our task. In my humble opinion, these three basic truths are necessary if we are to demonstrate a literal Original Sin. Notice the word “if” which is another way of expressing a goal.

Is a “literal Original Sin” just one criteria? No, I think it’s one act with many criteria.
What is the criteria for an act being the “literal Original Sin”?

The first criteria would be that in order for Original Sin to be literal, it has to be possible for Original Sin to exist.

How does 1. 2. & 3. cause these criteria to be met?

I would not necessarily use the word cause. I would offer that points 1, 2, 3, demonstrate that Original Sn is possible.

I think there are many more steps needed before most people would say, Oh, I see how O.S. flows right out of the logic.

Correct. In addition, I do not think that those steps are written in stone.

If these are the axioms what are the steps of logic to reach this result?

Personally, I would like to see how close to a literal Original Sin, we can get. One possible way is to deduce from point 1 that there is a difference between the Creator and the creatures.

Going back to your question " 3. also a could and maybe; if He wants and we want?" – we could search Catholic teachings for evidence that point 3 has already taken place. An example would be the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26 and following.

Still another way to arrive at a literal sin would be to examine CCC 1730.
**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.
I do not see how CCC 1730 could possibly deny the first three axioms.

At this point in time, I see different paths which can possibly lead from the presented axioms to a literal Original Sin. Which path would you like to test first? Testing each path is essential for good logic.

 

[fhansen]

I think there may be confusion, granny, in that the three axioms appear to be laid out as a syllogism, which means that 3 is supposed to follow fom 1 & 2. But I don’t think that’s how you mean it?

 

[grannymh]

I think there may be confusion, granny, in that the three axioms appear to be laid out as a syllogism, which means that 3 is supposed to follow fom 1 & 2. But I don’t think that’s how you mean it?

You are correct. Good point.

CAF posts often present an example of a three point syllogism. However, a workable deductive method of reasoning should not be limited to the sample syllogism. Plus, in practical reality, there can be some inductive reasoning when using the deductive method. I have read that mathematics uses, in general, the deductive method of reasoning while natural science uses the inductive method of reasoning.

According to my dictionary, an axiom is a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference. Axiom is also described as an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth. It is also a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit.

If I were smart enough to do a simple syllogism . . .

Sample from Google.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal

. . . I would do that in a New York minute.

But somehow, when God as Creator is a factor, there are different versions of God such as an intelligent designer or one of the variety in theistic evolution. As a former journalist, I learned to cover my arse. Nothing has changed since the dark ages before Google. Thus, I find myself stating at least three opening Axioms.

The initial three axioms.

1. God as Creator exists.
   Information source. Genesis 1:1; first sentence of the Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; CCC 279.

Axioms 2. & 3 are two of the many descriptions of God’s almighty power.

Therefore,
2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
Information source. CCC 301; Genesis 1: 26-29

Therefore,
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
Information source. CCC 356; CCC 396; the first three chapters of Genesis.

We need axiom 2. because that essentially addresses the rational spiritual soul of Adam. And axiom 3 addresses the original friendship relationship between the original human and his Creator. What happened to that original relationship is Original Sin.

The end of post 916 presents some ways to analyze Original Sin. I can imagine these ways flowing from either axiom 2 or 3 or both. Because axiom 1 is accepted as truth, axioms 2 and 3 also are truth because they expand or further describe the truth in axiom 1.

I am sure someone could do the above in a simpler way. To me, this project reminds me of when we were diagraming sentences in grade school. I could do that then, but now …

 

[simpleas]

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.

The object of the will is the good so the will naturally desires the good. However, in the absence of the beatific vision which is the universal good [God himself] and which necessarily moves the will if the will is to will anything at all, which Adam and Eve did not possess, the will of human beings in this life is not necessarily moved by either what is true good or apparent good although it is natural for humans to choose what is truly good as this is in keeping with their nature while choosing evil is not. So, in this life we are confronted with choices or alternatives which the intellect makes judgements on. For example, Eve " saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes." The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a particular good created by God, enticed Eve’s natural, sensual appetite but it could not necessarily move Eve’s will to eat of it. Eve also knew that God had commanded her and Adam not to eat of it. So Eve was confronted with a choice whether to obey God’s command which is true good or to disobey which obviously is not good. Apparently, Eve also believed the lie from the devil that the tree would give her wisdom for human beings naturally desire to know for the object of the intellect is truth and knowledge. However, the devil seduced Eve into believing the lie he told her.

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.

As was the case for A&E.

Apparently, Eve also believed the lie from the devil that the tree would give her wisdom for human beings naturally desire to know for the object of the intellect is truth and knowledge.

So are you saying humans would naturally disobey God, because of our desire for truth and knowledge?

 

[simpleas]

Good addition. Thank you.

I think that some, not all, people bypass the theological truth that God created us and the rest of creation out of His infinite goodness and love. There have been some horrible accusations against God because the beginning of human history included the freely chosen act of Original Sin.

I think that some, not all, people bypass the theological truth that God created us and the rest of creation out of His infinite goodness and love. There have been some horrible accusations against God because the beginning of human history included the freely chosen act of Original Sin

I think alot of people have difficulty understanding why God after creating everything in a good state, saw it fit to allow an evil to tempt his human creatures, thus allowing the whole of the human race to become wounded. People often refer to their own children, they say if they knew their child would be inclined to disobey and cause harm to them self and others they would not put a temption in their way. Of course if the child goes out of their way to get at the temptation then there is no more a parent could do but allow the childs freedom.

 

[Aloysium]

I think alot of people have difficulty understanding why God after creating everything in a good state, saw it fit to allow an evil to tempt his human creatures, thus allowing the whole of the human race to become wounded. People often refer to their own children, they say if they knew their child would be inclined to disobey and cause harm to them self and others they would not put a temption in their way. Of course if the child goes out of their way to get at the temptation then there is no more a parent could do but allow the childs freedom.

Would you say you are a good man? Not speaking in generalities, not in the realm of ideas, but in reality, what makes you a good man?

 

[simpleas]

Would you say you are a good man? Not speaking in generalities, not in the realm of ideas, but in reality, what makes you a good man?

I’m not quite sure why you are asking this?

 

[simpleas]

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.

On the other hand, as the OP, I am going to follow up on post 1. There I had three theological axioms.

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.
   That is compared with these two axioms from post 910.
   The first essential basic fundamental theology teaching regarding Original Sin is that God is the ultimate Creator (Genesis 1:1) Considering the infinite power of God, it follows that God can personally interact with His human creatures. These two simple axioms set the stage for the drama in the first three chapters of Genesis. (literary shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26)

In my humble opinion, “either-or” can lead to a literal Original Sin. Here is a rather interesting observation from the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 389. I put the key comment in bold – which refers to some heavy Catholic theology.

**389 **The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

This is good investigation for us, this is what we need to do in order to gain our understanding and knowledge of God, on paper, and then experiencing the world as we all do in our own lives.
But none of it would matter if sin had never been allowed into the garden (satan). If A&E had never disobeyed we would never seek God, would never look into why, how and what of anything in the world. We would know it all. Be in constant relation with God and all creation. There would be nothing to seek.
Whether each human born with the original grace and justice would have been able to make the correct choice is another question, as being born with freewill, even if they had not sinned, their children may have because God allows our own state in our own being.

 

[grannymh]

This is good investigation for us, this is what we need to do in order to gain our understanding and knowledge of God, on paper, and then experiencing the world as we all do in our own lives.
But none of it would matter if sin had never been allowed into the garden (satan). If A&E had never disobeyed we would never seek God, would never look into why, how and what of anything in the world. We would know it all. Be in constant relation with God and all creation. There would be nothing to seek.
Whether each human born with the original grace and justice would have been able to make the correct choice is another question, as being born with freewill, even if they had not sinned, their children may have because God allows our own state in our own being.

Yikes! Please refer to sentences in bold from post 923.
If A&E had never disobeyed we would never seek God, would never look into why, how and what of anything in the world. We would know it all. Be in constant relation with God and all creation. There would be nothing to seek.

What happened to eternal heaven?
And God??
And CCC 1730???
And Genesis 1: 27???
And *CCC *356???
And human nature???

:stretcher: I feel like the person in the middle.

 

[Richca]

I think alot of people have difficulty understanding why God after creating everything in a good state, saw it fit to allow an evil to tempt his human creatures, thus allowing the whole of the human race to become wounded. People often refer to their own children, they say if they knew their child would be inclined to disobey and cause harm to them self and others they would not put a temption in their way. Of course if the child goes out of their way to get at the temptation then there is no more a parent could do but allow the childs freedom.

“One never put to the proof knows little” (Sirach 34:10).
“For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sirach 2:5).

St Augustine says “It seems to me that man would have had no prospect of any special praise, if he were able to lead a good life simply because there was none to persuade him to lead an evil life; since both by nature he had the power, and in his power he had the will, not to consent to the persuader.”

 

[fhansen]

“One never put to the proof knows little” (Sirach 34:10).
“For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sirach 2:5).

St Augustine says “It seems to me that man would have had no prospect of any special praise, if he were able to lead a good life simply because there was none to persuade him to lead an evil life; since both by nature he had the power, and in his power he had the will, not to consent to the persuader.”

I love it. Thank you, good quotes. Not a few Protestants would be gagging about now tho: “special praise”? “consent”? “had the will”? But God’s plan is so much greater-and makes so much sense.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m not quite sure why you are asking this?

It wasn’t to be intrusive, but to try get the point across that what we are talking about everywhere on these forums is about ourselves and our relationtionship with our Maker.
If you wnat to know about yourself, look toward Adam and Eve, and vice versa.
So, why would God test them? The answer is provided in the posts that followed your question, but you can always look into yourself - the goodness, the evil, the suffering, all living realities in the immediate expression of human nature that is you in yourself.
We are better than animals in that we can love, we can do good, and we can do evil. That is pretty amazing.
How can one show obedience, patience, courage, and love without a context that asks for those possibilities?

 

[grannymh]

I do recognize that it is acceptable for Catholics to speculate until the cows come home. That being said, it is very important to present Catholic Church teachings so that readers will not come away with false ideas about the Catholic Church.

Regarding posts 923 & 924.

When it comes to speculations about what would happen if the original Adam had not committed the Original Sin, the Catholic Church says this.
From CCC 404
“But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.”

Some people are concerned about the current truth regarding humanity’s original relationship with the Divine Creator. When it comes to speculations about the events surrounding Original Sin or no Original Sin, we need to remain within Catholic teachings. It is legitimate to speculate what would happen if Adam had never disobeyed (post 923) God’s proper commandment. But, we cannot change Catholic doctrines.

Unfortunately, there are people who do not recognize subtle attacks against some basic Catholic doctrines when they read general information about Adam and Eve. Not recognizing these attacks, often there are speculations which, in some manner, turn away from the deep truths of Catholicism.

 

[simpleas]

Yikes! Please refer to sentences in bold from post 923.
If A&E had never disobeyed we would never seek God, would never look into why, how and what of anything in the world. We would know it all. Be in constant relation with God and all creation. There would be nothing to seek.

What happened to eternal heaven?
And God??
And CCC 1730???
And Genesis 1: 27???
And *CCC *356???
And human nature???

:stretcher: I feel like the person in the middle.

Well if you feel like the person in the middle :console:

To be honest I think you exaggerated in your questions to my post. If you read it again I said we would know it all, be in constant relation with God and creation. If they had remained eating of the tree of life they remain with God’s word, they would not need to seek God as it is referred to in the CCC, that is education for us as Christians in aiding us to understand who God is, how to seek him etc. This knowledge would be a part of A&E because there was no sin.
However it seems they would have needed to keep eating from the tree of life (staying close to God) until they achieved their rightful place in God, BV.

 

[simpleas]

“One never put to the proof knows little” (Sirach 34:10).
“For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation” (Sirach 2:5).

St Augustine says “It seems to me that man would have had no prospect of any special praise, if he were able to lead a good life simply because there was none to persuade him to lead an evil life; since both by nature he had the power, and in his power he had the will, not to consent to the persuader.”

We can’t have good without evil and vice versa. So it seems sin had to happen in order for man to overcome it and become worthy of special praise.

Did you miss my question in post 919? No problem if you don’t wish to reply to it

 

[davidv]

We can’t have good without evil and vice versa.

This is categorically false. God is good. He needs no evil to be in existence. The angels were created good. They did not need evil to exist for them to exist.

So it seems sin had to happen in order for man to overcome it and become worthy of special praise.

Did you miss my question in post 919? No problem if you don’t wish to reply to it

 

[simpleas]

It wasn’t to be intrusive, but to try get the point across that what we are talking about everywhere on these forums is about ourselves and our relationtionship with our Maker.
If you wnat to know about yourself, look toward Adam and Eve, and vice versa.
So, why would God test them? The answer is provided in the posts that followed your question, but you can always look into yourself - the goodness, the evil, the suffering, all living realities in the immediate expression of human nature that is you in yourself.
We are better than animals in that we can love, we can do good, and we can do evil. That is pretty amazing.
How can one show obedience, patience, courage, and love without a context that asks for those possibilities?

I see what you are getting at.

I would like to look toward A&E but I can’t, because I see a massive difference in their original nature as humans free from “the pains of this world”.