S
simpleas
Guest
I don’t have any evidence that there was a perfect Adam and Eve, I only know they were made good, never perfect…
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for presenting the difficult questions.
:grouphug:
D
davidv
Guest
I don’t know why this in an issue. When were A&E declared perfect?
G
grannymh
Guest
While Adam and Original Sin are proper subjects, it seems that there are more distractions than real issues. 
W
wmw
Guest
One of the criteria I’m thinking of for O.S. is opportunity. God had to provide an opportunity since without the option there is no choice.
For God to be spurned He has to make Himself able to be rejected or possible to ignore. He loves, but to love includes the possibility to be hated even if all such hate is never realized.
By interaction from God are we assuming Love?
For God to be spurned He has to make Himself able to be rejected or possible to ignore. He loves, but to love includes the possibility to be hated even if all such hate is never realized.
By interaction from God are we assuming Love?
- & 3 don’t say anything directly about love. I may see a path from Love->freedom->God Provided Opportunity To be spurned.
G
grannymh
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
Earlier, you commented: “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”.”
Hopefully, there can be a recognition that a “massive difference in their original nature” is a speculation not in tune with Catholic teaching.
Regarding the qualification that they were free from “the pains of this world,” these are sweet words that are distracting. The reality is that Adam’s nature included a decomposing anatomy just like ours. The Catholic teaching is that God gave Adam the extra gift of immortality which simply means that Adam’s decomposing anatomy did not have to eventually die. Original Sin did not destroy Adam’s original human nature. The effects of Original Sin wounded human nature. One of the effects of Original Sin is that the extra gift of immortality was lost.
The extra gift of immortality did not change Adam’s material decomposing anatomy. It simply bypassed the final step of decomposing which happens to be bodily death.
The next question is – What did change in Adam? What changed is that his State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace was destroyed and replaced with the State of Original Sin.
One of the logical reasons for the reality of a single first Adam is that God’s promise of reconciliation (repairing the lost relationship between humanity and Divinity) includes every human person. Therefore, every person is so loved by God that He sent His only Son to redeem each individual. This is why we find comfort in our Good Shepherd.
G
grannymh
Guest
I am very grateful that the concept of speculation has entered this thread. Please see post 933. All the words in bold are definitely speculations. These speculations are definitely opposed to Catholic teachings.
The speculation that we would never seek God and the speculation that there would be nothing to seek sound a tad like the speculations that God does not exist. Therefore, Genesis 1: 26-28 loses all its meaning within Catholicism. And the first three axioms of this thread are quietly denied.
Here are two of many references to God’s continual relationship with us. He definitely called Adam to seek Him in His glory. Even if Adam had not disobeyed, his descendants would still be seeking the existence of God in their lives.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
**356 **Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”. He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”, and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.
**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.
We have to be very careful with speculations about the possibility **If A&E had never disobeyed. **We have to carefully avoid wrong impressions.**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.
G
grannymh
Guest
Three initial axioms from post 913
The first three intimately related axioms establish a sincere relationship between God the Creator and Adam, His first human creature. Point 3 not only establishes a personal interactive relationship with humans, it also demonstrates that God as Creator initiated or ordained the relationship of Divinity to humanity. We need to emphasize Who did what first.
Going from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-28, we discover that God does not consider humans on a par with the creatures in Genesis 1: 20-25. A follow up distinction between animals and Adam is Genesis 2: 7. Another interesting difference is the comparison of Genesis 1: 30 with Genesis 2: 15. God gives the food to His non-human creatures, but Adam has to work for it as the gardener. The scientific difference is Genesis 2: 20.
Going back to the fact that we are in the image of God, we can appreciate God’s tremendous love for us. This love is emphasized in the fact that we can share in God’s own life because of Genesis 1: 27. Sharing in God’s life is Adam’s State of Original Holiness aka our State of Sanctifying Grace. This is how God interacts personally with each individual person.
Adam is definitely not on the same level as God. Sharing God’s life does not mean that Adam is a separate equal divinity. Therefore, there needs to be certain conditions so that Adam can maintain a friendship relationship with his almighty Creator. All of CCC 396 needs serious study before we can continue.
**CCC 396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
- God as Creator exists.
Therefore, - God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
Therefore, - God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
…can lead to a literal Original Sin…
The first three intimately related axioms establish a sincere relationship between God the Creator and Adam, His first human creature. Point 3 not only establishes a personal interactive relationship with humans, it also demonstrates that God as Creator initiated or ordained the relationship of Divinity to humanity. We need to emphasize Who did what first.
Going from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-28, we discover that God does not consider humans on a par with the creatures in Genesis 1: 20-25. A follow up distinction between animals and Adam is Genesis 2: 7. Another interesting difference is the comparison of Genesis 1: 30 with Genesis 2: 15. God gives the food to His non-human creatures, but Adam has to work for it as the gardener. The scientific difference is Genesis 2: 20.
Going back to the fact that we are in the image of God, we can appreciate God’s tremendous love for us. This love is emphasized in the fact that we can share in God’s own life because of Genesis 1: 27. Sharing in God’s life is Adam’s State of Original Holiness aka our State of Sanctifying Grace. This is how God interacts personally with each individual person.
Adam is definitely not on the same level as God. Sharing God’s life does not mean that Adam is a separate equal divinity. Therefore, there needs to be certain conditions so that Adam can maintain a friendship relationship with his almighty Creator. All of CCC 396 needs serious study before we can continue.
**CCC 396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
W
wmw
Guest
Three initial axioms from post 913
2 + 3 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship
Conclusion:
Opportunity to choose+
Knowledge of choice +
Intent to choose+
act of completing choice by the whole of humanity
=Literal Original sin
I’m beginning to see part of an argument form here, but it’s still rather skeletal. Even after attempting to add more criteria of why literal O. S. was a likely eventuality.
- God as Creator exists.
Therefore, - God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
Therefore, - God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
2 + 3 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship
Conclusion:
Opportunity to choose+
Knowledge of choice +
Intent to choose+
act of completing choice by the whole of humanity
=Literal Original sin
I’m beginning to see part of an argument form here, but it’s still rather skeletal. Even after attempting to add more criteria of why literal O. S. was a likely eventuality.
W
wmw
Guest
1, 2, 3 are axioms 2 and/or 3 do not have to follow from 1.
The only logical deduction thus far is
2 + 3 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship
I welcome disagreement on this for I may see it as a single step, but it may be better to break it down more into simpler steps. Or change the wording to make it more clear.
Maybe better labels would help:
Axioms:
A1. God as Creator exists.
Therefore,
A2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
Therefore,
A3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
Logical deductions:
L1 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship (A2 + A3 = L1)
L2 =C1 = Friendship is in opposition to servitude thus Freedom is granted via an Opportunity to NOT be in friendship. (L1->L2->C1)
Criteria for Literal Original Sin:
C1 Opportunity to choose+
C2 Knowledge of choice +
C3 Intent to choose+
C4 act of completing choice by the whole of humanity
The only logical deduction thus far is
2 + 3 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship
I welcome disagreement on this for I may see it as a single step, but it may be better to break it down more into simpler steps. Or change the wording to make it more clear.
Maybe better labels would help:
Axioms:
A1. God as Creator exists.
Therefore,
A2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
Therefore,
A3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
Logical deductions:
L1 = God created man in his image and established him in his friendship (A2 + A3 = L1)
L2 =C1 = Friendship is in opposition to servitude thus Freedom is granted via an Opportunity to NOT be in friendship. (L1->L2->C1)
Criteria for Literal Original Sin:
C1 Opportunity to choose+
C2 Knowledge of choice +
C3 Intent to choose+
C4 act of completing choice by the whole of humanity
G
grannymh
Guest
In granny’s backyard, 1, 2, 3, is not the normal syllogism.
From changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/syllogisms/syllogisms.htm
Major premise: A general statement.
Minor premise: A specific statement.
Conclusion: based on the two premises.
From web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/glances%20ahead/III.logic.language.html
- All men are mortal.
- Socrates is a man.
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
I have chosen the route of axioms which are useful in the deductive method of reasoning. The initial points, 1, 2, 3, are individual true statements. I have also chosen the Catholic Church as a source of truth. I was up front with that in post 1 of this thread. Please note that visitors to my backyard do not have to believe my main source of truth.
When I was working for money, one of the popular sayings regarding new and different subjects was – Run it up a flag pole and see who salutes.
Yes. I am really old.
Seriously, the reality of a single first Adam is an unique proposition in this century. I chose starting with axioms as a way to freely explore a reality which looks absurd, but in reality is basic in a number of Catholic teachings.
W
wmw
Guest
Argh, who in the blaze of heaven put those “Therefore”'s in between the Axioms?
G
grannymh
Guest
Me.
With the power of a granny, I hereby duly declare and properly proclaim that therefore and henceforth those annoying “therefores” are banished. This is a direct command similar to the directive of going directly to jail where one cannot pass Go nor collect $200.00 which is probably lunch money today.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Rain in Spain Stays Mainly in the Plain.
By George, wmw has got it .
Please note that my singing is worse than misplacing therefores.
Also, when I passed the toughest logic course in the universe, I said to myself that I would never remember all that I learned. That did happen. However, I do recall that in logic, there are endless possibilities and endless ways to seek truth as well as to avoid truth. “Therefore,” I recognize that you are on the right path. I do have a couple of questions for later, but first I need to know the meaning of the symbol → which appears in (L1->L2->C1). It reminds me of diagraming sentences in grade school.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Since an axiom is a statement that is presumed to be self-evident or true, then logic must apply to a series of axioms. While I accept that a creator exists, it does not follow that said creator interacts with all, or any of that creation or that any action is necessary to continue the existence of that which has been directly created or is simply a result of that creation.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, some of these are statements of faith, held to be true by Catholics, which in turn are held to have been divinely revealed by God.
W
wmw
Guest
“->” therefore (or in an odd way by reading it right to left, is derived from)
So, banning “therefore”'s is not a very good idea, we just need to use them properly.
And in another context
“->” “is a pointer to” (in C and C++ software language where a variable is stored as a memory address to indicate the location of a variable, variable structure, location within a variable structure, or location to execute software like the start of a subroutine)
Yet, I’ve used an interesting mix of “=” and “->”
for equals (=) I mean a more exact, “these are the same”
for therefore (->) it is a logical operation to get there.
So, banning “therefore”'s is not a very good idea, we just need to use them properly.
And in another context
“->” “is a pointer to” (in C and C++ software language where a variable is stored as a memory address to indicate the location of a variable, variable structure, location within a variable structure, or location to execute software like the start of a subroutine)
Yet, I’ve used an interesting mix of “=” and “->”
for equals (=) I mean a more exact, “these are the same”
for therefore (->) it is a logical operation to get there.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Which I respect, though I do not believe in revelation.
- Status