O
OneSheep
Guest
All pertinent.
“most secret core” might be a bit of an overstatement, but it’s not a problem. Is not our most secret core the soul itself? Not a big issue.
Thanks.
Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity
- Status
“most secret core” might be a bit of an overstatement, but it’s not a problem. Is not our most secret core the soul itself? Not a big issue.
Thanks.
G
grannymh
Guest
That is a good observation. What examples can you give?
I have based my thread on the Catholic Church which teaches that the individual human is an unique unification of the material anatomy and the spiritual rational soul. The “relationship with the human and himself” is not missing because the Catholic teaching is that the spiritual rational soul has rational tools including self-reflection.
G
grannymh
Guest
The Catholic Church does not teach that the spiritual soul is a secret.“most secret core” might be a bit of an overstatement, but it’s not a problem. Is not our most secret core the soul itself? Not a big issue.
Thanks.
Here is some Catholic information from post 354 above. *CCC *1795 is a beautiful description of how essential our conscience is. Please notice that it is God whose voice we should listen to.
It is so sad the way some people mangle the beautiful gift of conscience which automatically comes with our God-created spiritual soul. We need to shut out the noise of some unnamed wolves who want to mold the Catholic Church to their personal preferences so that our sacred Catholic Church becomes a big tent minus some essential Catholic doctrines, for example, the elimination of the necessary Sacrament of Confession.
**CCC 1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (*GS *16).
O
OneSheep
Guest
Oh Granny
Full Definition of SECRET
1
a : kept from knowledge or view : hidden
b : marked by the habit of discretion : closemouthed
c : working with hidden aims or methods : undercover
d : not acknowledged : unavowed
e : conducted in secret
2
: remote from human frequentation or notice : secluded
3
: revealed only to the initiated : esoteric
4
: designed to elude observation or detection
5
: containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security — compare confidential, top secret
Must you, dear, be so contentious.
OMG, if the CCC says the conscience is a secret, then the stated fact must be defended to the end, lest the “stealth arianists” or some other feared heretic who doesn’t even know he/she is a heretic turn the entire Catholic Church upside down and cause unknown mayhem, the end of Christianity, or worse yet, open the tent to some person who definitely Does Not Belong. Heavens! We must keep a small, tidy, exclusive tent!
Granny, cling to the literal! Do not let a single word of the CCC be compromised!
So give this next statement of mine All You Have Got! Defend the infallible! This next statement comes from the worst of humanity! Watch out! Here it comes!
If something is mentioned in the CCC, there is nothing “secret” about it.
On the other hand, maybe definition #2, for the unaware…
It’s okay, granny, I still love you.
O
OneSheep
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
In polite terms,
that is not exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition says.
In respectful terms,
may I gently suggest reading **all **the words in a *CCC *paragraph. Perhaps, you should check the possessive case of man. englishplus.com/grammar/00000364.htm
Don’t you simply love this wonderful CCC sentence about conscience: “There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”
G
grannymh
Guest
Excellent answers.Man to God: Prayer.
God to man: Love, creation itself. Jesus. Granny.
Note to our gentle readers.
Here is the question.
What are the differences and what are the similarities between 2. and 3.?
Here is what we are working with. Do remember that this thread is about the real first human being biblically known as Adam.
Here are three undeniable truths according to the Catholic Church.
- God as Creator exists.
- God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
- Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.
God to man: Love, creation itself. Jesus. Granny.
Perfect. The literal creation of the first real human person is found as Divine Revelation in Genesis 1: 26-27. God’s love after the literal Original Sin is emphasized in the fact that God did not abandon Adam and Eve. John 3: 16-17 is about Jesus. As for a real granny, she is one of the cranky descendants of Adam and his spouse Eve.
OneSheep’s answer –
Man to God: Prayer.
Perfect. Still, a silly question just rolled between my ears. What were Adam’s prayers?
He was in a special relationship with his Creator.
Note to our gentle readers.
Post your :twocents:
S
simpleas
Guest
You said in post #345
*God the Father never changed his mind toward man in any way, never disapponted, never angry, never punishing. *
So all the stories of God’s anger and his punishment upon cities and tribes of people, some by the chosen people, were man’s own conscience and not the one God of all?
This is why I still have trouble relating the God of the NT with the God of the OT, when it is the same God, yes there is blessing, mercy in the O.T as much as forgiveness, but also God’s unforgiveness at times when he destroys his children because they do not listen to him.
Jesus seems a world away from the OT God. He does not ask to kill those who do not live according to the ten commandments.
So is it really more about our conscience developing, growing, toward goodness and God, or reclaiming our conscience from what we once knew and lost, sending us on a spiral of recovery.
That is what I think.
Thanks.
S
simpleas
Guest
This maybe of interest to some as a related piece.
secondsightblog.net/2015/08/13/adam-and-eve-and-pinch-me-tight/
It’s from a comment made on another topic by the same blog (pope for a day) which you will find a link to on the right side of the page, should you be curious
From the blog :
In discussing Pope for a day our respected contributor, John Candido, started a post with the sentence “The doctrine of original sin has to be removed from the church’s doctrines and replaced with a more realistic understanding of human frailty as it has garnered though evolutionary processes.“ This is a thought which might be fruitfully explored.
*So we might look at two Christians considering these accounts. The first, who takes the Genesis story literally, accepts that he has inherited a condition damaged by sin, and prone to further sin. Fortunately he has a champion who, by taking on our human nature, has redeemed it, and has promised us the grace we need to triumph over our own sinful inclinations.
The second, who prefers the evolutionary model, accepts that he has inherited a condition which is oriented to evil resulting from his passions, and prone to give way to them rather than to follow his aspirations. Fortunately he has a champion who, by taking on our human nature, has redeemed it, and has promised us the grace we need to triumph over our own sinful inclinations.*
It’s an interesting discussion, and one I thought I’d share along with our interesting discussion.
Thanks.
secondsightblog.net/2015/08/13/adam-and-eve-and-pinch-me-tight/
It’s from a comment made on another topic by the same blog (pope for a day) which you will find a link to on the right side of the page, should you be curious
From the blog :
In discussing Pope for a day our respected contributor, John Candido, started a post with the sentence “The doctrine of original sin has to be removed from the church’s doctrines and replaced with a more realistic understanding of human frailty as it has garnered though evolutionary processes.“ This is a thought which might be fruitfully explored.
*So we might look at two Christians considering these accounts. The first, who takes the Genesis story literally, accepts that he has inherited a condition damaged by sin, and prone to further sin. Fortunately he has a champion who, by taking on our human nature, has redeemed it, and has promised us the grace we need to triumph over our own sinful inclinations.
The second, who prefers the evolutionary model, accepts that he has inherited a condition which is oriented to evil resulting from his passions, and prone to give way to them rather than to follow his aspirations. Fortunately he has a champion who, by taking on our human nature, has redeemed it, and has promised us the grace we need to triumph over our own sinful inclinations.*
It’s an interesting discussion, and one I thought I’d share along with our interesting discussion.
Thanks.
R
Richca
Guest
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Simpleas!This maybe of interest to some as a related piece.
secondsightblog.net/2015/08/13/adam-and-eve-and-pinch-me-tight/
It’s from a comment made on another topic by the same blog (pope for a day) which you will find a link to on the right side of the page, should you be curious
From the blog :
In discussing Pope for a day our respected contributor, John Candido, started a post with the sentence “The doctrine of original sin has to be removed from the church’s doctrines and replaced with a more realistic understanding of human frailty as it has garnered though evolutionary processes.“ This is a thought which might be fruitfully explored.
*So we might look at two Christians considering these accounts. The first, who takes the Genesis story literally, accepts that he has inherited a condition damaged by sin, and prone to further sin. Fortunately he has a champion who, by taking on our human nature, has redeemed it, and has promised us the grace we need to triumph over our own sinful inclinations.
The second, who prefers the evolutionary model, accepts that he has inherited a condition which is oriented to evil resulting from his passions, and prone to give way to them rather than to follow his aspirations. Fortunately he has a champion who, by taking on our human nature, has redeemed it, and has promised us the grace we need to triumph over our own sinful inclinations.*
It’s an interesting discussion, and one I thought I’d share along with our interesting discussion.
Thanks.
I am not certain that the two alternatives Candido presents are necessarily distinguishable.
For example, what is the difference between “inherited a condition damaged by sin” and “inherited a condition which is oriented toward evil”?
Both of the “options” involve a negative anthropology. A real alternative involves one that starts with man not oriented toward evil. Instead, lets start with the view that man is oriented toward love and doing the morally good. People do far more good than evil, and people do evil when ignorance and blindness affect the “passions”.
This does not diminish the need for redemption. People are less prone to bad behavior than they are enslaved by their nature, the simple mechanism of being a human with drives and emotions. Jesus came to set us free, which is much more than a fix-it for bad moral behavior.
Thanks for the link!
O
OneSheep
Guest
There are some examples, too, in the NT of people behaving less than compassionately. I think the persistence of the contrasting approaches in inspired scripture show that we are to honor both!
I see that you have that lingering sense of something “lost”. I have been thinking about this a bit lately. “Why is it that we find so appealing the premise that we have lost something?”
An answer dawned on me. We all start out, as children, with a smaller set of drives, a smaller set of passions. The desires for status, power, territory, (sex, of course) and arguably all the natural appetites become stronger as we grow older, which we sense as a loss of innocence. As children we were less enslaved, to some degree, than later on (depending on spiritual growth).
What is your answer? Why do you think that people so readily accept that something was “lost”?
I do like your developmental approach.
Thanks!
G
grannymh
Guest
Here are three undeniable truths according to the Catholic Church. Obviously, points 2. and 3. are the basis for Adam’s original relationship with his Divine Creator.
There have been a few interrupting erroneous teachings, etc., which need attention. Derailing a thread can be a way of opposing Catholic teachings. I am very grateful for those people who defend the Church against the “wolves” which appear in some manner within our Church.
If this thread can help one person remain in the Catholic Church, then, in its own way, this thread is successful.
- God as Creator exists.
- God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
- Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.
There have been a few interrupting erroneous teachings, etc., which need attention. Derailing a thread can be a way of opposing Catholic teachings. I am very grateful for those people who defend the Church against the “wolves” which appear in some manner within our Church.
If this thread can help one person remain in the Catholic Church, then, in its own way, this thread is successful.
S
simpleas
Guest
S
simpleas
Guest
There are some examples, too, in the NT of people behaving less than compassionately. I think the persistence of the contrasting approaches in inspired scripture show that we are to honor both!
I see that you have that lingering sense of something “lost”. I have been thinking about this a bit lately. “Why is it that we find so appealing the premise that we have lost something?”
An answer dawned on me. We all start out, as children, with a smaller set of drives, a smaller set of passions. The desires for status, power, territory, (sex, of course) and arguably all the natural appetites become stronger as we grow older, which we sense as a loss of innocence. As children we were less enslaved, to some degree, than later on (depending on spiritual growth).
What is your answer? Why do you think that people so readily accept that something was “lost”?
I do like your developmental approach.
Thanks!
What about God? We have God speaking to certain people telling them to rid a town or place of the people because of their sin, and what of the natural disasters? Is that God showing his wrath and wiping out his children, even today, or is it just the unfortunate, mother nature that disasters happen?
Maybe not that we have lost something, maybe feeling lost in some way.
Like Grannymh said, the thread is being derailed, maybe you can start an new one on your question, if you like.
As it’s the feast of The Assumption of Mary today, listening to the visiting priest at our Mass, twice reminding us that in Genesis the woman came from the man, in the new order, the man came from the woman, and how important Mary is to our Church.
I need to mediate on that more.
Have a nice weekend all.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I shift the questions What about God? and Is that God showing His wrath and wiping out His children? to this question – What about God in His original relationship with humanity?
What did God want to get out of His original relationship with Adam and subsequently Adam’s descendants? What is God’s point of view? The answer is – For God so loved the world that He wanted humans to have eternal life with Himself in heaven. (John 3: 16-17) Therefore, God created humans in His image so that we could share in His eternal life.
(Genesis 1: 27)
If I ever meet Adam, I am going to slap him hard upside the head. Our world is a mess, thanks to his free decision. When I finally, hopefully, get rid of my nasty intentions, hopefully, I will seek the graces of the Sacrament of Confession and Reconciliation so I do not repeat …
This amazing Sacrament does more than forgiving mortal sins. It gives us those graces so that we can freely progress on our own individual path to the Beatific Vision. (CCC Glossary, page 867) Even our annoying venial sins need to disappear. Even Adam, as a true human person, is worthy of profound respect.
In the meantime, I am going to focus on the fact that our own human nature was not destroyed. And on the fact that God continued to love us. (Genesis 3:15) In a realistic sense, Genesis 3: 16-19 is simply returning humanity back to their original material position in a physical material world. (CCC paragraphs 374-376)
Still, God never let go of His desire to have all humans in His eternal presence. (CCC 1730-1732)
Years ago, I considered the death of innocent children as a way of bringing them immediately into God’s presence. Immediately, without the dangers and temptations of our material world.
This morning, I think about the reference to mother nature who would use a raging fire to clear out the old growth and prepare the ground for new growth. Mother nature does not need God speaking to her. We not only need God speaking to us, we often need His words to be visible. In reality, the visible effects of the broken original relationship between humanity and Divinity, are all around us and inside us as we struggle to listen to our God-given conscience. God is always there, helping us via His gifts of many graces.
I may be way off base, but it seems to me, that when the author was recording Hebrew history, He “quoted” if that is the right word, God directing this or that disaster for this or that purpose as a sure way of making sure that readers always know that God is always in charge – even when our puny minds can’t completely understand.
For some people, a horrible event is a wake-up call. The sufferings of a horrible event may be a realization that one’s broken relationship with God is not as good as one imagined, for example, certain mortal sins. Others might consider earthly suffering as their purgatory cleansing. Others might cry out-- I know already, give me a break.
Still others may consider that disasters are an [unwanted] opportunity where we can love God by loving our neighbor. First Responders come to mind as well as those who hold someone in their arms while waiting for news about a loved one in an earthquake.
What about God?
When Adam deliberately destroyed humanity’s original relationship with Divinity, God did not give up. Adam lived so that he had the opportunity to repent and turn back to God. My sense of humor kicks in when I imagine Genesis 3: 21.
R
Richca
Guest
S
simpleas
Guest
Thanks.
When I asked “what about God” I was referring to the scriptures that tell of God giving instructions to certain people to destroy certain other people, or treat them differently (less worthy) and also the belief that God caused what we would view today as a natural disaster. I don’t believe when a natural disaster happens that God willed it because of the sin of people, I’m not sure I know of anyone who does believe that now, there probably are some.
G
grannymh
Guest
Humani Generis, paragraph 12, please refer to words in bold. This particular “union of all” refers to the secular goal of the “big happy tent” which is imprudent eirenism where people can break bread together while denying annoying Catholic doctrines.
Please note that this particular Humani Generis “union of all” is man-made and thus, in a variety of ways, it opposes Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
“But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all,* but only to their destruction*.”
Today, when we look at the possibilities of a secular union of all in a big happy tent, we can find all kinds of Catholic doctrines shoved under the rug. There are two such doctrines that are pertinent to this thread. 1. the reality of Adam and 2. the reality of Original Sin. Both Adam and his Original Sin are major factors in the destruction of the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.
In fairness to all,
it is also important to understand the objections to the reality of Adam and the misinterpretations of Original Sin. Therefore, those who are familiar with the various personal opinions of popular public authors, including prolific e-mails and media presentations – would you share your information? Obviously, one does not have to believe the stealth attacks on basic foundational doctrines. Yet, it is important to understand the means and ways some people use – hoping to upset, change, and modernize the Catholic Church. For example, misinterpreting the meaning of figurative language.
**Please, please understand that the Good Shepherd constantly seeks the union of all in His flock. However, the Divine Good Shepherd recognizes that some, not all, sheep will prefer to go elsewhere. CCC 1730-1732 is a necessary truth.
G
grannymh
Guest
Humani Generis, paragraph 12. Please refer to words in bold. This particular “union of all” refers to the secular goal of the “big happy tent” which is imprudent eirenism where people can break bread together while denying annoying Catholic doctrines.
Please note that this particular Humani Generis “union of all” is man-made and thus, in a variety of ways, it opposes Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
“But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all,* but only to their destruction*.”
Today, when we look at the possibilities of a secular union of all in a big happy tent, we can find all kinds of Catholic doctrines shoved under the rug. There are two such doctrines that are pertinent to this thread. 1. the reality of Adam and 2. the reality of Original Sin. Both Adam and his Original Sin are major factors in the destruction of the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.
In fairness to all,
it is also important to understand the objections to the reality of Adam and the misinterpretations of Original Sin. Therefore, those who are familiar with the various personal opinions of popular public authors, including prolific e-mails and media presentations – would you share your information? Obviously, one does not have to believe the stealth attacks on basic foundational doctrines. Yet, it is important to understand the means and ways some people use – hoping to upset, change, and modernize the Catholic Church.
**Please, please understand that the Good Shepherd constantly seeks the union of all in His flock. However, the Good Shepherd recognizes that some, not all, sheep will prefer to go elsewhere. **
**CCC 1730-1732 is a necessary truth.
- Status