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

[grannymh]

The simple universal Catholic truth is that both God as Creator and Adam as His first human creature are literal historical reality.

While hundreds, most likely thousands of Catholics considering the world wide reach of public writers, do openly doubt the existence of Adam —the real Catholic religion maintains that God as Creator does exist along with fundamental doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Adam and ourselves, each share the same journey to the Beatific Vision. (*CCC *Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867)

I can certainly understand why popular modern prophets like to bash Original Sin and place Adam on the top of their personal fantasy list. Who wants to be aware of the responsibility for one’s actions?
I often wonder if these persuasive “Catholics” realize that their misinterpretations – because of their chosen lack of awareness of the purpose of the Catholic Church – can be damaging. How sad.

 

[simpleas]

Well, for much of my own journey, I saw a “brokenness”, something broken in the relationship, something broken about humanity, something “fallen” or “stained”, but I no longer see humanity this way. I see humanity in a process of creation, and the events of our history as part of the process.

This may give the impression of “before, I was wrong, now I am right.” This is not the case. I am truly dedicated to, and see the truth in, a “both/and” approach. I was not “wrong” before. I had a different awareness at the time.

And, actually, what I have been observing lately is that there may be very little difference in outlook for a person who delays the “fall”.

Let me explain. If a “liberal” Catholic sees that in the early years of Christianity the followers were in the Right, but afterwards the Catholic Church was steered in the wrong direction, then this too looks a lot like a “fall”. The “origin” shifts to early Christianity and the “fall” is the rise of Constantinople, the times of being driven to a stricter orthodoxy: the schism, the reformation or counter-reformation, some other form of “fall” where “originally” everything was much better and now we are in a depraved (or deprived) state. Now I will grant that there are changes to be made that would be an improvement, but I am still looking at a very positive anthropology. Humanity is beautiful; God got it right, of course, even though we learn very, very slowly.

History can be looked at as 2 steps forward and 1 step back, 3 forward and 10 back, etc., but the “net” is still forward! Humanity as a whole is clearly less tribal and more inclusive than we were 100 years ago, and much more inclusive than any time further back. We are becoming more of a family, that is the trend I see.

The book I mentioned a few posts back supports this observation. Yes, humans take a long time, generations, to become more aware. It is happening. I can’t really say whether current trends are in the positive direction or the backward direction, but as humans, when we make errors we learn.

Does that make sense? Do you view our history the same way as I do?

This is quite interesting, although I’m not sure you answered my question. I’m thinking that you don’t believe there was an original man and woman with original grace and justice, only because of how you explained humans taking a long time to become more aware?

The church does allow belief in evolution, yet I don’t see how it can, while believing in two fully complete humans.

I have looked into bits of church history and can see certain “stages” where we as a church have progressed regarding human life.

The rest of what you wrote I won’t comment on as I think it will steer off the original post and thread theme.

 

[OneSheep]

The simple universal Catholic truth is that both God as Creator and Adam as His first human creature are literal historical reality.

While hundreds, most likely thousands of Catholics considering the world wide reach of public writers, do openly doubt the existence of Adam —the real Catholic religion maintains that God as Creator does exist along with fundamental doctrines flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis.

Adam and ourselves, each share the same journey to the Beatific Vision. (*CCC *Glossary, Beatific Vision, page 867)

I can certainly understand why popular modern prophets like to bash Original Sin and place Adam on the top of their personal fantasy list. Who wants to be aware of the responsibility for one’s actions?
I often wonder if these persuasive “Catholics” realize that their misinterpretations – because of their chosen lack of awareness of the purpose of the Catholic Church – can be damaging. How sad.

We are in full agreement for taking responsibility for ones’ actions.

What is the damage that can happen from what occurrence? Please clarify.

Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

This is quite interesting, although I’m not sure you answered my question. I’m thinking that you don’t believe there was an original man and woman with original grace and justice, only because of how you explained humans taking a long time to become more aware?

I have looked into bits of church history and can see certain “stages” where we as a church have progressed regarding human life.

The rest of what you wrote I won’t comment on as I think it will steer off the original post and thread theme.

There had to have been an original man and woman, in some sense, or we would not exist, biologically speaking. “Original grace and justice” need some defining in order to explain my beliefs.

If you are saying that I do not believe that God considered creating the world, knew that man would defy Him, and decided that He would in some way punish man for defying Him, causing some form of misery for generations, but decided He would go through with it anyway, no, I don’t believe that. It does not make sense to me now that God would create man, planning for him to exist in a state of being punished.

On the other hand, if someone does believe that, as I once did, that is okay too. There is good reason to believe it, it is natural to believe it. There is a place for such belief.

Is that still confusing? Did I still not answer the question? If not, thanks for your patience. You may have to define “original grace and justice” for me.

The church does allow belief in evolution, yet I don’t see how it can, while believing in two fully complete humans.

Here is something else that would have to be defined. What is a “fully complete human”? What seems to make us human (other than genetics and intellectual capability) is a higher level capacity for awareness than other creatures. The possibility that such higher capacity first occurred in a man and a woman cannot be disproven by science, and since the creation story is not a scientific document, then there is really no conflict at all. Science cannot disprove the possibility, and Genesis cannot disprove evolution, nor was it meant to. Genesis addresses a different set of questions.

Does that help?

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

I often wonder if these persuasive “Catholics” realize that their misinterpretations – because of their chosen lack of awareness of the purpose of the Catholic Church – can be damaging. How sad.

Dear Granny,

Indeed, let us talk of awareness. Are you aware of what the danger, what the possible damage is? If so, please enlighten me as to your sense of this.

In addition, if a lack of awareness is chosen, and if having such awareness is indeed something of importance, then the choice is being made with a lack of awareness of its importance. Perhaps if you express the dangers and possible damage, you could enlighten those who make such uninformed choices.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Dear Granny,

Indeed, let us talk of awareness. Are you aware of what the danger, what the possible damage is? If so, please enlighten me as to your sense of this.

In addition, if a lack of awareness is chosen, and if having such awareness is indeed something of importance, then the choice is being made with a lack of awareness of its importance. Perhaps if you express the dangers and possible damage, you could enlighten those who make such uninformed choices.

Thanks.

It is proper to review what I posted.

Here is the ending from post 296. Please note that there is a specific lack of awareness – not any lack of awareness – but a specific one which I will put in bold.
“I can certainly understand why popular modern prophets like to bash Original Sin and place Adam on the top of their personal fantasy list. Who wants to be aware of the responsibility for one’s actions?
I often wonder if these persuasive “Catholics” realize that their misinterpretations – because of their chosen** lack of awareness of the purpose of the Catholic Church** – can be damaging. How sad.”

In this post you have examined the lack of awareness section. Thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut. If you so wish, you can present your opinion about the next section the purpose of the Catholic Church.

It is proper to put both sections on the table for discussion. We certainly would not want to omit the second half.

By the way.
The purpose of the Catholic Church, while not directly mentioned in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity, can be considered as God’s love following Original Sin. John 3: 16-17. Genesis 3: 15. CCC 410-411.

 

[grannymh]

Here is something else that would have to be defined. What is a “fully complete human”? What seems to make us human (other than genetics and intellectual capability) is a higher level capacity for awareness than other creatures.
Thanks.

Please accept my apology. I do not wish to be rude; but, I have to ask the obvious questions.

What happened to the Catholic doctrines on human nature?
Is this “higher level capacity” another denial?

People who understand natural science may recognize the older terminology that a “higher level capacity for awareness than other creatures” refers to degrees of difference between species and not difference in kind.
“The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.” — Charles Darwin
dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/a-difference-of-degree-and-not-kind/

While Darwin showed the similarities between animal and human minds, he also brought to our attention how humans have evolved from animals and developed new skills: “nevertheless the difference in mind between man and higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.” (Descent, p. 130)
infidels.org/kiosk/article/charles-darwin-and-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind-783.html

In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996,
St. John Paul II clearly stated the Catholic doctrine regarding the spiritual soul which definitively differentiates the human person in kind from all other creatures. (CCC 343; Genesis 1: 26)
“It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God (“animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei”; “Humani Generis,” 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.”
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Incompatible is a very strong word.

 

[OneSheep]

Please accept my apology. I do not wish to be rude; but, I have to ask the obvious questions.

What happened to the Catholic doctrines on human nature?
Is this “higher level capacity” another denial?

Good Morning Granny!

The doctrines are alive and well! What “higher level capacity” are you referring to, though? Humans are smarter than other creatures, but that has nothing to do with human spirituality. Human spirituality is created, it is part of our being, which all comes from God. The quote from JPII is in agreement with this.

So, now that I answered your questions, can you answer mine? Please?

Here it is again, from my last post:

Indeed, let us talk of awareness. Are you aware of what the danger, what the possible damage is? If so, please enlighten me as to your sense of this.

In addition, if a lack of awareness is chosen, and if having such awareness is indeed something of importance, then the choice is being made with a lack of awareness of its importance. Perhaps if you express the dangers and possible damage, you could enlighten those who make such uninformed choices.

Face the question with prayer and courage, Granny. Do not let it overwhelm you or overpower you. When there is darkness, as Jesus says, the darkness is great! When we add light, the darkness goes away. Shine the light of prayer, Granny! Reflect on the questions. It’s hard, I know.

God’s Peace

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Granny!

The doctrines are alive and well! What “higher level capacity” are you referring to, though? Humans are smarter than other creatures, but that has nothing to do with human spirituality. Human spirituality is created, it is part of our being, which all comes from God. The quote from JPII is in agreement with this.

So, now that I answered your questions, can you answer mine? Please?

Here it is again, from my last post:

Indeed, let us talk of awareness. Are you aware of what the danger, what the possible damage is? If so, please enlighten me as to your sense of this.

In addition, if a lack of awareness is chosen, and if having such awareness is indeed something of importance, then the choice is being made with a lack of awareness of its importance. Perhaps if you express the dangers and possible damage, you could enlighten those who make such uninformed choices.

Face the question with prayer and courage, Granny. Do not let it overwhelm you or overpower you. When there is darkness, as Jesus says, the darkness is great! When we add light, the darkness goes away. Shine the light of prayer, Granny! Reflect on the questions. It’s hard, I know.

God’s Peace

It is proper to review what I posted.

Here is the ending from post 296. Please note that there is a specific lack of awareness – not any lack of awareness – but a specific one which I will put in bold.
“I can certainly understand why popular modern prophets like to bash Original Sin and place Adam on the top of their personal fantasy list. Who wants to be aware of the responsibility for one’s actions?
I often wonder if these persuasive “Catholics” realize that their misinterpretations – because of their chosen** lack of awareness of the purpose of the Catholic Church** – can be damaging. How sad.”

In post 300, you referred to a **general ****lack of awareness. **Thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut. However, I deliberately chose a specific lack of awareness. If you so wish, you can present your opinion about the next section the purpose of the Catholic Church.

It is proper to put both sections on the table for discussion. We certainly would not want to omit the second half.

In plain words --awareness in general has been discussed. However, that may be preemptive on my part. Thus, if you have more to add to general lack of awareness, please feel free to do so.

Now, it is your turn. It is your turn to face the fact that before any damage or danger can be discussed, one has to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church which is the specific subject of the lack of awareness. I totally understand the hesitancy to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church.

Actually, this may not be the proper place to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church which is not directly mentioned in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Still, the purpose of the Catholic Church can be considered as one of the acts of God’s love following Original Sin.
(John 3: 16-17. Genesis 3: 15. CCC 410-411)

I am confident that readers recognize the difference between general and specific.

 

[simpleas]

There had to have been an original man and woman, in some sense, or we would not exist, biologically speaking. “Original grace and justice” need some defining in order to explain my beliefs.

If you are saying that I do not believe that God considered creating the world, knew that man would defy Him, and decided that He would in some way punish man for defying Him, causing some form of misery for generations, but decided He would go through with it anyway, no, I don’t believe that. It does not make sense to me now that God would create man, planning for him to exist in a state of being punished.

On the other hand, if someone does believe that, as I once did, that is okay too. There is good reason to believe it, it is natural to believe it. There is a place for such belief.

Is that still confusing? Did I still not answer the question? If not, thanks for your patience. You may have to define “original grace and justice” for me.

Here is something else that would have to be defined. What is a “fully complete human”? What seems to make us human (other than genetics and intellectual capability) is a higher level capacity for awareness than other creatures. The possibility that such higher capacity first occurred in a man and a woman cannot be disproven by science, and since the creation story is not a scientific document, then there is really no conflict at all. Science cannot disprove the possibility, and Genesis cannot disprove evolution, nor was it meant to. Genesis addresses a different set of questions.

Does that help?

Thanks.

Thanks.

Our Church states that the first two fully complete humans (as in a body with a soul) Adam and Eve were created with original holiness ( that they shared in God’s own life) and original justice (that they were in right relationship with self, other and creation)
When God gave the “matter” a soul (part of his own being, spirit if you like) it would have only been of goodness because we say God does not create evil, but he created beings that were capable of evil (angels first, then man)
So this is why I asked if you believed in a first man and women with the above abilities and that they lost these abilities, thus creating a fallen world.

What makes us human is that we have a soul, most all religions and tribes that still exist refer to the soul. And I think most other creatures are aware of their own and of their environment, just because we don’t speak their language, doesn’t mean they are not aware in their own level of consciousness. Take also for example , brain damaged children, they too have a soul, their awareness of others and themselves maybe low, but they can interact with life through different means.

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning Granny!

The doctrines are alive and well! What “higher level capacity” are you referring to, though?

Humans are smarter than other creatures,

but that has nothing to do with human spirituality. Human spirituality is created, it is part of our being, which all comes from God. The quote from JPII is in agreement with this.

So, now that I answered your questions, can you answer mine? Please?

Here it is again, from my last post:

Indeed, let us talk of awareness. Are you aware of what the danger, what the possible damage is? If so, please enlighten me as to your sense of this.

In addition, if a lack of awareness is chosen, and if having such awareness is indeed something of importance, then the choice is being made with a lack of awareness of its importance. Perhaps if you express the dangers and possible damage, you could enlighten those who make such uninformed choices.

Face the question with prayer and courage, Granny. Do not let it overwhelm you or overpower you. When there is darkness, as Jesus says, the darkness is great! When we add light, the darkness goes away. Shine the light of prayer, Granny! Reflect on the questions. It’s hard, I know.

God’s Peace

Humans are smarter than other creatures,

Debatable!!

Sorry couldn’t resist!

 

[simpleas]

It is proper to review what I posted.

Here is the ending from post 296. Please note that there is a specific lack of awareness – not any lack of awareness – but a specific one which I will put in bold.
“I can certainly understand why popular modern prophets like to bash Original Sin and place Adam on the top of their personal fantasy list. Who wants to be aware of the responsibility for one’s actions?
I often wonder if these persuasive “Catholics” realize that their misinterpretations – because of their chosen** lack of awareness of the purpose of the Catholic Church** – can be damaging. How sad.”

In post 300, you referred to a **general ****lack of awareness. **Thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut. However, I deliberately chose a specific lack of awareness. If you so wish, you can present your opinion about the next section the purpose of the Catholic Church.

It is proper to put both sections on the table for discussion. We certainly would not want to omit the second half.

In plain words --awareness in general has been discussed. However, that may be preemptive on my part. Thus, if you have more to add to general lack of awareness, please feel free to do so.

Now, it is your turn. It is your turn to face the fact that before any damage or danger can be discussed, one has to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church which is the specific subject of the lack of awareness. I totally understand the hesitancy to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church.

Actually, this may not be the proper place to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church which is not directly mentioned in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Still, the purpose of the Catholic Church can be considered as one of the acts of God’s love following Original Sin.
(John 3: 16-17. Genesis 3: 15. CCC 410-411)

I am confident that readers recognize the difference between general and specific.

Maybe it should be on another thread as you say, but the purpose of the church is to carry on the work of Jesus. Although my first thought was the church’s purpose is to save souls, which is the same thing anyway.

 

[davidv]

Maybe it should be on another thread as you say, but the purpose of the church is to carry on the work of Jesus. Although my first thought was the church’s purpose is to save souls, which is the same thing anyway.

To be more explicit about the purpose of the Church, Jesus says:

Matt.28 1:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[OneSheep]

Now, it is your turn. It is your turn to face the fact that before any damage or danger can be discussed, one has to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church which is the specific subject of the lack of awareness. I totally understand the hesitancy to discuss the purpose of the Catholic Church.

Good Morning Dear

Actually, it was your turn, was it not? Girl, you drive a hard bargain. Okay, if I give my answer as to the purpose of the Church, will you tell me what the dangers and possible damage are? In the next post? I think the purpose of the Church is quite clear, not a need of long discussion. If you agree to this, I will share my views of the purpose.

Now, as far as “bashing original sin” goes, there have been those that share their hesitancy about its possible contradictions, not the least of which is that God created us, not man, and God made everything good. In an alternative view man does not, can not, change his own value. However, there is certainly a place in doctrine for those that do see a change in man’s value, and that view should be respected. I suggest that there are other definitions of “original sin” that explain man’s inherited capacity to do evil without devaluing man, without showing the human as anything less than beautiful and totally loved in God’s eyes. This and other definitions can sit side by side the “depravity” view without distracting from The Purpose, indeed, these alternative views help achieve The Purpose.

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

My quote: Humans are smarter than other creatures.

Debatable!! Sorry couldn’t resist!

Awright. Smarter in some ways. In some ways, my dog is much smarter than I am. More loving too.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Dear

Actually, it was your turn, was it not? Girl, you drive a hard bargain. Okay, if I give my answer as to the purpose of the Church, will you tell me what the dangers and possible damage are? In the next post? I think the purpose of the Church is quite clear, not a need of long discussion. If you agree to this, I will share my views of the purpose.

Now, as far as “bashing original sin” goes, there have been those that share their hesitancy about its possible contradictions, not the least of which is that God created us, not man, and God made everything good. In an alternative view man does not, can not, change his own value. However, there is certainly a place in doctrine for those that do see a change in man’s value, and that view should be respected. I suggest that there are other definitions of “original sin” that explain man’s inherited capacity to do evil without devaluing man, without showing the human as anything less than beautiful and totally loved in God’s eyes. This and other definitions can sit side by side the “depravity” view without distracting from The Purpose, indeed, these alternative views help achieve The Purpose.

Thanks

It is proper to review what I post.
This is from my post 304.

“In post 300, you referred to a **general ****lack of awareness. **Thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut. However, I deliberately chose a specific lack of awareness. If you so wish, you can present your opinion about the next section the purpose of the Catholic Church.”

As I said, “if you so wish,” you may do what you wish about presenting your opinion about the next section “The purpose of the Catholic Church.” What I decide to do is up to me.

You have a very informative paragraph about Original Sin in your post 309. Thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut. It reminds me of some things I was reading last year and the first part of this year. Actually, my thoughts go back to when I would post the protocol for the visible Catholic Church on earth. I may be wrong, but the information in post 309 reminds me of a general lack of awareness of Catholic protocol involving the establishment of unchangeable Catholic doctrines. One of the many purposes of the Catholic Church is to properly define and declare Catholic doctrines.

Information source: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” (CCC 66) The “suggestion” that there are other definitions of Original Sin does not sound quite right.

OneSheep,

Please.
What is the current general definition of Original Sin and what are the other suggested definitions that explain man’s inherited capacity to do evil without devaluing man, without showing the human as anything less than beautiful and totally loved in God’s eyes? I understand the part without devaluing man-----However, I want to know what Adam did that received the name Original Sin.

 

[OneSheep]

As I said, “if you so wish,” you may do what you wish about presenting your opinion about the next section “The purpose of the Catholic Church.” What I decide to do is up to me…

Granny dearest,
Let me review a couple of your latest decisions:

A while back you said you had concerns, and I asked what those were. Eventually, you said you had no concerns.

A little later, you said that some suggestions made concerning original sin were of “danger” and possibly creating “damage”, I asked you what the danger and damage entail, and you have refused to answer for such thus far.

From whence comes, my dear, the choice to instill fear when there is indeed nothing to fear? If there was something to fear, then you would surely have brought it forward by now. Some say fear, as the opposite of faith, comes from the devil. I disagree.

Fear comes from desire to protect that which we see is under threat. Are you saying that varying ideas about original sin are a threat? If so, you are fearing some possible outcome, that the doctrine itself may change a little. Is this what you fear?

God Bless your Monday.

 

[grannymh]

Granny dearest,
Let me review a couple of your latest decisions:

A while back you said you had concerns, and I asked what those were. Eventually, you said you had no concerns.

A little later, you said that some suggestions made concerning original sin were of “danger” and possibly creating “damage”, I asked you what the danger and damage entail, and you have refused to answer for such thus far.

From whence comes, my dear, the choice to instill fear when there is indeed nothing to fear? If there was something to fear, then you would surely have brought it forward by now. Some say fear, as the opposite of faith, comes from the devil. I disagree.

Fear comes from desire to protect that which we see is under threat. Are you saying that varying ideas about original sin are a threat? If so, you are fearing some possible outcome, that the doctrine itself may change a little. Is this what you fear?

God Bless your Monday.

Life in the big city does get interesting.

I may be wrong, but the information in post 309 reminds me of a general lack of awareness of Catholic protocol involving the establishment of unchangeable Catholic doctrines.

Because one of the many purposes of the Catholic Church is to properly define and declare Catholic doctrines, it looks like I have to go back to square one and remind our readers of chapter 14, Gospel of John. This knocks out the concept, mentioned in post 309 –
“I suggest that there are other definitions of “original sin” that explain man’s inherited capacity to do evil without devaluing man, without showing the human as anything less than beautiful and totally loved in God’s eyes. This and other definitions can sit side by side the “depravity” view without distracting from The Purpose, indeed, these alternative views help achieve The Purpose.”

I may be wrong, and do correct me about the Purpose. I believe you were referring to the purpose of the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. There are no alternative doctrines.

 

[grannymh]

To our gentle readers,

My apology.
I ran out of editing time in my previous post. My suggestion was to read chapter 14, Gospel of John. One more thought. The Catholic Church teaches that the human person is worthy of profound respect. If possible, meditate on Genesis 1: 26-27.

I do admit my surprise at the depth of recent posts by OneSheep. Because this is the middle of the night for me, I will pause here in case someone has a reply to OneSheep’s posts.

 

[simpleas]

I’m not understanding what John 14 has to do with Adam and Eve’s sin…

I may need to read it many times.

I still get stuck on man being made in Gods image, yet man was not divine, only given a human soul, which came only from God, who is divine, yet man isn’t divine, not even a tiny bit…
Yes having a soul lets us share in Gods life, and his graces keep us strong, we need the source of life in order to live, shouldn’t we at least believe we can be more than a wounded nature, even with all the evil around us, that’s what makes us different in our belief