Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity

[fhansen]

So man needed no outside source to influence his thoughts that God was lying to him, he believed this himself.

Of course disobedience is a temptation, but in the genesis story, satan is the voice that tempts, so maybe it was man’s own voice within and satan does not exist.

Perhaps satan just doesn’t have to work very hard at his job. St Jame’s statement in the first chapter of his letter, “…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed” probably applies as much to Adam as to ourselves. Either way, the Church teaches that satan is a very real being, who’s goal is the destruction of God’s kingdom, complete negativity as he would desire to place creation in opposition to its Creator.

It’s probably important to emphasize that satan’s voice comes from without, even if only as a whisper, and even though we may retain the thought/temptation within and dwell on it. God’s voice is innately within, even if obscured or ignored or overridden.

 

[grannymh]

So, the unborn child, though holy, is deprived of a relationship with God, until baptism? So, even the adult going through RCIA has no relationship with God, until baptism? Or, is it more like the baptism makes the relationship more fully realized, or instead, baptism is the sign that God is already in relationship with everyone, signified in the pouring of the water?

Please, let’s not carried away. I am totally surprised about the possible thought that an adult going through RCIA has no relationship with God until baptism. Are you not aware of God’s “actual grace?” Have you forgotten the Good Shepherd? This truly makes me sad. However, I am guessing that because so many surrounding people deny the reality of Adam, that the Sacrament of Baptism also looses its reality for some people.

Would you kindly explain the reality of Adam and how that leads to the Sacrament of Baptism?

 

[grannymh]

**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.

**CCC 1731 **Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

**CCC 1732 **As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Perhaps someone should ask in the Apologetics Forum – Is the Beatific Vision the ultimate good which is God? Another question for the Apologetics Forum – Is knowledge necessary so that one can initiate and control his own actions? How does one choose to act or not to act, to do this or that? Are deliberate actions one of the fundamental points in criminal law?

Can anyone guess what CCC 356 implies?

**CCC 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.

 

[grannymh]

Me too-study without comprehension is disappointing as well. 1730-1732 can be cited all day long but those paragraphs don’t answer the question in post #167: “What would change this fact?”

From post 167.
“One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact?”

My apology for assuming that heaven is a real place and that the Beatific Vision would overcome any possible temptation. My apology for looking beyond life on planet earth in order to find a reason that would end earthly temptations.

 

[grannymh]

Well, we really don’t know how much Adam knew about death, but that is not the point of the story, so we aren’t given those details. We don’t know if they knew that the serpent would deceive either. We certainly don’t know if they knew that their defiance would change relationships for generations, if that is the case.

So, even if the story says nothing about original sin, it is a pretty interesting attempt to explain why humans have the perception of good and evil. What it does not explain is why the human is so much better off with the innate perceptions.

Yeah, well, that is the other side of the coin. When we make good choices, we really don’t know what we are doing then either. There is just so much we do not know. We think that we know a lot.

The main thing pertinent here is that when we make choices that lead to increased suffering, we are either not realizing what we are doing, or the net effect of the act is intended to decrease suffering. Is that confusing?

We can relate to Adam and Eve because they did not know what they were doing, nor do we. If “wounded nature” is our lack of awareness, such woundedness is had by everyone.

People make bad choices, even knowing that the choices are bad, but are still intending some good, right? It is that “net effect” thing. People are blind to the value of the other, and they make choices that they do not think are bad, but indeed, people suffer because of them.

Because of these points, there is some logic in saying that the relationship Adam had with God was essentially no different than our own. We all are born holy, we all are capable of blindness, and are born in a “state” of lacking awareness. So, our “wounded” nature may simply be that we lack awareness or are capable of blindness…

Adam and Eve wanted, and the wanting creates a blindness. Some look at that capacity for blindness as “wounded” others see it as a gift of our nature, a gift from God.

:twocents:

My sincere apology. I am having an extreme difficulty relating post 176 to the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, at first glance, this statement from post 176 sounds adequate. But, does it omit essential information? Personally, I would like to see a more complete rendering of all the facts.

From Post 176.
Because of these points, there is some logic in saying that the relationship Adam had with God was essentially no different than our own. We all are born holy, we all are capable of blindness, and are born in a “state” of lacking awareness. So, our “wounded” nature may simply be that we lack awareness or are capable of blindness.

My apology. I keep thinking that the Catholic Church teaches that God the Creator is different from Adam the creature.

How could a real Adam in his original relationship with his real Creator miss the fact that he is not a similar Creator? Was Adam’s choice of blindness so powerful that it reduced the status of God?

 

[grannymh]

We can relate to Adam and Eve because they did not know what they were doing, nor do we.

That is really a very interesting idea. Do you mind if I ask where did that idea come from? Obviously, that idea did not come from the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

Please, let’s not carried away. I am totally surprised about the possible thought that an adult going through RCIA has no relationship with God until baptism. Are you not aware of God’s “actual grace?” Have you forgotten the Good Shepherd? This truly makes me sad. However, I am guessing that because so many surrounding people deny the reality of Adam, that the Sacrament of Baptism also looses its reality for some people.

Would you kindly explain the reality of Adam and how that leads to the Sacrament of Baptism?

Hi Granny,

So, you are surprised by the “possible thought”, but the thought is very common. Now, since it has been established that the unborn child is not deprived of a relationship with God, in what way is she deprived?

She is not unholy, and she has a relationship with God. So what is it about her “state” that is deprived? I am thinking that the deprivation is one of awareness. She has a relationship with Abba but does not know it, and it is rather undeveloped. Is that the deprivation?

And if that is the case, Baptism is a sign that she is already blessed, already holy, and involves the faith that something deeper will someday be realized. Does that agree with your version?

God Bless

 

[grannymh]

Here is a suggestion ----

Write out *CCC *1730 and CCC 396.

Circle the words which pertain to Adam. For example. Circle the words “God created man” and circle these words “by cleaving to Him” which pertain directly to Adam’s original relationship with his Creator God. In fact, once one understands these two sets of words, one is able to fill in the blanks of the original relationship between humanity, Adam, and Divinity, God Himself.

Is there anyone else ready to accept that challenge?
And, of course, post the reasons for their choice of words.

My very sincere apology to our readers.

This thread is hijacked by some unfortunate speculations which are not part of Catholic teachings. This is free speech.

Here is the Catholic teaching.
**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.

​

“God created man” immediately tells us that Adam does not have equal status with God. Adam, as a rational being, can tell the difference between God and himself.

Here is an interesting comment from one of the posts on this thread.
“And our choices? When we make bad choices, we do not know what we are doing. We experience alienation, but the alienation take place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God. And even when we make a choice that alienates us from our love of God, we do so without knowing what we are doing.”
If we apply that comment to Adam, we can understand Adam’s experience of alienation – but wait, the alienation takes place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God. That does not sound like the Catholic teaching that Adam shattered his relationship with God. If Adam has no original relationship with God, that omits the Catholic teachings about original Sin. Getting rid of original sin and then blaming God for our situation sounds like a good reason for free speech speculations which omit responsibility for one’s actions because one does not know what one is doing.

 

[OneSheep]

My very sincere apology to our readers.

This thread is hijacked by some unfortunate speculations which are not part of Catholic teachings. This is free speech.

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.

​

“God created man” immediately tells us that Adam does not have equal status with God. Adam, as a rational being, can tell the difference between God and himself.

Here is an interesting comment from one of the posts on this thread.
“And our choices? When we make bad choices, we do not know what we are doing. We experience alienation, but the alienation take place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God. And even when we make a choice that alienates us from our love of God, we do so without knowing what we are doing.”
If we apply that comment to Adam, we can understand Adam’s experience of alienation – but wait, the alienation takes place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God.

Hijacked, my dear?

It seems that there was a while back that a particular Sheep had this really great thread established on Whether man owes God a debt, and someone came in and kept wanting to talk about Adam.

So, here I am talking about Adam, and in particular how he is no different than us, and I am trying to get to the bottom of the “deprivation” you are referring to, as you see my last post to you.

You asserted that the unborn child is deprived, but you have not established the characteristics of the deprivation.

And hey, nothing like a little controversy to keep the thread going, right? If everyone agrees completely, they all go home.

Speculations that go against Catholic teachings? Charity, granny, charity. Please try to remain charitable. Yes, we are in control of our actions as 1730 says. Our perceptions, however, are very difficult to control. They seem like reality, even though they are not. The people of ISIS perceive that they are destroying evil, but they are living in illusion. They do not know what they are doing.

What about the unborn child is deprived? Do you agree with my statements about the deprivation in my last post?

With Love, as always,

OneSheep

 

[fhansen]

x

From post 167.
“One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact?”

My apology for assuming that heaven is a real place and that the Beatific Vision would overcome any possible temptation. My apology for looking beyond life on planet earth in order to find a reason that would end earthly temptations.

You still miss the point-or evaded it? God expected Adam-and expects* us*- to make choices prior to the BV, choices that already perfect our freedom as we direct it towards God (1731). The BV then becomes both our* reward* for choices made and the *guarantor *that those choices will remain definitive.

So the questions remains, “What would change this fact?” What would cause Adam to turn back to God in faith and obedience, to make right choices, choices without which he would not be able to see God?

 

[grannymh]

Hijacked, my dear?

It seems that there was a while back that a particular Sheep had this really great thread established on Whether man owes God a debt, and someone came in and kept wanting to talk about Adam.

The Catholic teaching is that a real Adam is the person who shattered humanity’s relationship with God. Usually the one who does the deed is responsible for it. Adam, because he does not have divine status, could not repair the shattered relationship.
That is why understanding “status” is an important part of the original humanity Divinity.

A real Adam who freely committed, with knowledge, the real Original Sin cannot be ignored.

 

[grannymh]

x

You still miss the point-or evaded it? God expected Adam-and expects* us*- to make choices prior to the BV, choices that already perfect our freedom as we direct it towards God (1731). The BV then becomes both our* reward* for choices made and the *guarantor *that those choices will remain definitive.

So the questions remains, “What would change this fact?” What would cause Adam to turn back to God in faith and obedience, to make right choices, choices without which he would not be able to see God?

Apparently, I do not know the correct answer.

 

[grannymh]

Hijacked, my dear?

It seems that there was a while back that a particular Sheep had this really great thread established on Whether man owes God a debt, and someone came in and kept wanting to talk about Adam.

So, here I am talking about Adam, and in particular how he is no different than us, and I am trying to get to the bottom of the “deprivation” you are referring to, as you see my last post to you.

You asserted that the unborn child is deprived, but you have not established the characteristics of the deprivation.

And hey, nothing like a little controversy to keep the thread going, right? If everyone agrees completely, they all go home.

Speculations that go against Catholic teachings? Charity, granny, charity. Please try to remain charitable. Yes, we are in control of our actions as 1730 says. Our perceptions, however, are very difficult to control. They seem like reality, even though they are not. The people of ISIS perceive that they are destroying evil, but they are living in illusion. They do not know what they are doing.

What about the unborn child is deprived? Do you agree with my statements about the deprivation in my last post?

With Love, as always,

OneSheep

This cranky granny has a limited attention span. I am more interested in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. As far as I can tell, Adam was not an unborn child when he scorned his Creator. Just because you are using free speech – that is no reason why I must, I must reply to everything that is said.

Free speech allows me to cherry pick.

 

[grannymh]

My very sincere apology to our readers.

This thread is hijacked by some unfortunate speculations which are not part of Catholic teachings. This is free speech.

Here is the Catholic teaching.
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.

​

“God created man” immediately tells us that Adam does not have equal status with God. Adam, as a rational being, can tell the difference between God and himself.

Here is an interesting comment from one of the posts on this thread.
“And our choices? When we make bad choices, we do not know what we are doing. We experience alienation, but the alienation take place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God. And even when we make a choice that alienates us from our love of God, we do so without knowing what we are doing.”
If we apply that comment to Adam, we can understand Adam’s experience of alienation – but wait, the alienation takes place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God. That does not sound like the Catholic teaching that Adam shattered his relationship with God. If Adam has no original relationship with God, that omits the Catholic teachings about original Sin. Getting rid of original sin and then blaming God for our situation sounds like a good reason for free speech speculations which omit responsibility for one’s actions because one does not know what one is doing.

Speaking of being charitable. I recognize that apparently there are unfamiliar Catholic teachings in my topic. In addition, cherry picking is not very charitable.(post 190) Therefore, the best thing I can do is to stop right here.

 

[fhansen]

Apparently, I do not know the correct answer.

And I believe that the answer is within the totality of Church teachings, which I attempted to outline briefly in a previous post or two. Anyway, sorry to participate in hijacking your thread. It’s mainly in response to questions or statements that pop up in various posts. And I’m still waiting to hear how they’re going to make the connection logically between Adam’s sin and the transmission of that sin to his descendants.

 

[OneSheep]

Speaking of being charitable. I recognize that apparently there are unfamiliar Catholic teachings in my topic. In addition, cherry picking is not very charitable.(post 190) Therefore, the best thing I can do is to stop right here.

Hi Granny

Cherry picking is economical, there is always so much to address. Accusation of “against Catholic teaching” is another matter, so please refrain.

So, let’s go back to “logic”. You have asserted that there is a “shattered” relationship, but you have also stated that the child is not unholy, and that the child has a relationship with God, or is at least fully capable even without having been baptized.

This remains unresolved. In addition, you have stated that the child is “deprived” and have not characterized the deprivation, nor have you commented on my suggestions of such deprivation.

What do you think of this:

Jesus came not to change God’s view of man because it was and has always been one of unconditional love, but instead He came to change man’s view of God, which was clouded by self-condemnation.

Meanwhile, He came to change man’s idea about man: to encourage us to forgive at the deepest level, and in so doing see the beauty of humanity and learn how to love one another.

Again, feel free to cherry-pick, but keep in mind that without addressing the basic unresolved issues, anything else stated is on weak footing.

Have a great day … off to work I go.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

Well, we really don’t know how much Adam knew about death, but that is not the point of the story, so we aren’t given those details. We don’t know if they knew that the serpent would deceive either. We certainly don’t know if they knew that their defiance would change relationships for generations, if that is the case.

So, even if the story says nothing about original sin, it is a pretty interesting attempt to explain why humans have the perception of good and evil. What it does not explain is why the human is so much better off with the innate perceptions.

Yeah, well, that is the other side of the coin. When we make good choices, we really don’t know what we are doing then either. There is just so much we do not know. We think that we know a lot.

The main thing pertinent here is that when we make choices that lead to increased suffering, we are either not realizing what we are doing, or the net effect of the act is intended to decrease suffering. Is that confusing?

We can relate to Adam and Eve because they did not know what they were doing, nor do we. If “wounded nature” is our lack of awareness, such woundedness is had by everyone.

People make bad choices, even knowing that the choices are bad, but are still intending some good, right? It is that “net effect” thing. People are blind to the value of the other, and they make choices that they do not think are bad, but indeed, people suffer because of them.

Because of these points, there is some logic in saying that the relationship Adam had with God was essentially no different than our own. We all are born holy, we all are capable of blindness, and are born in a “state” of lacking awareness. So, our “wounded” nature may simply be that we lack awareness or are capable of blindness…

Adam and Eve wanted, and the wanting creates a blindness. Some look at that capacity for blindness as “wounded” others see it as a gift of our nature, a gift from God.

:twocents:

I’ve never heard of the “net effect” and I’m only part with you on the choice’s. I don’t think it’s part of this thread to start discussing it, maybe on another thread

 

[simpleas]

Perhaps satan just doesn’t have to work very hard at his job. St Jame’s statement in the first chapter of his letter, “…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed” probably applies as much to Adam as to ourselves. Either way, the Church teaches that satan is a very real being, who’s goal is the destruction of God’s kingdom, complete negativity as he would desire to place creation in opposition to its Creator.

It’s probably important to emphasize that satan’s voice comes from without, even if only as a whisper, and even though we may retain the thought/temptation within and dwell on it. God’s voice is innately within, even if obscured or ignored or overridden.

The second part I agree with.

But to say : "…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed" probably applies as much to Adam as to ourselves

You know I’ll only say that Adam did not have evil desire, until he disobeyed. He may have been enticed by satan, but from where did this evil,disobeying urge come from, when he was in good relations with God, and sinless.

 

[fhansen]

The second part I agree with.

But to say : "…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed" probably applies as much to Adam as to ourselves

You know I’ll only say that Adam did not have evil desire, until he disobeyed. He may have been enticed by satan, but from where did this evil,disobeying urge come from, when he was in good relations with God, and sinless.

Well, its a good question. But to say that satan actually placed the desire in Adam’s heart would be to say that satan did more than tempt, I would think. It’s one thing to tempt somebody but that person must also* agree*; they must find some good for themselves in the object of their desire. And then we’d have to ask, where did satan’s desire come from? In any case “evil desires” are perceived as good desires by the “desirerer” at the time of the act.

 

[grannymh]

What do you think of this:

Jesus came not to change God’s view of man because it was and has always been one of unconditional love, but instead He came to change man’s view of God, which was clouded by self-condemnation.

Meanwhile, He came to change man’s idea about man: to encourage us to forgive at the deepest level, and in so doing see the beauty of humanity and learn how to love one another."

I prefer the solid teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here is an interesting statement about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Hopefully, people will notice that there has to be a real literal Adam and a real literal Divine Creator.
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.

In addition, the Catholic Church teaches that there are three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He assumed, not absorbed, human nature. John 3: 16-17. That is serious stuff. It goes a lot deeper than the fluff of Jesus coming “not to change God’s view of man because it was and has always been one of unconditional love, but instead He came to change man’s view of God, which was clouded by self-condemnation.”

Any human prophet among prophets can preach on changing “man’s idea about man: to encourage us to forgive at the deepest level, and in so doing see the beauty of humanity and learn how to love one another.”

The really serious question is – Why does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus Christ is Divine? Of course, performing miracles is a sign of Divinity, but what really brought Jesus to our planet?
Sidebar.
The current explanation for Original Sin starts with a metaphor about a human father. Why people ignore God when it comes to an explanation is beyond me.

When we take time to look at the original relationship between Adam the creature and God his Creator, it becomes obvious that Adam is not on the same level as God. It is God Who not only created Adam, He created the original relationship with Adam. Going by CCC 404; CCC 356; CCC 374-376, and *CCC *1730-1732, it is a great relationship. Stop right here. Take a look at the condition for maintaining this powerful relationship in CCC 376.

Adam, being a human creature, could not invent the original relationship and by the same reasoning he could not repair the relationship after he shattered it. John 3: 16-17 was needed.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/