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

[OneSheep]

I heard no insults in granny’s comments.

hmmm. “Anti-Catholic” is not an insult? My mistake.

She is noting, with a certain anxiety, that you are distorting the teachings of the church.
I am of the same opinion.

Anxiety is a fear. What do you fear?

You have a particular hang-up about forgiveness.

Forgivness is very important. God forgives unconditionally.

Jesus died for our sins because sin brings evil into ourselves and the world, while damaging our relationship with God.

.

What do you mean by “brings evil into ourselves”? Can you describe the mechanism? Sin is alienation from our own love of God, so there is some damage, yes.

That which is evil cannot remain on the journey to God, it has to die.
He took on our evil and dying to it, Jesus freed us from its consequences.

Sin is alienation, it has its own consequence. If a person is a slave to his appetites, he is receiving the consequences. Jesus freed us from the alienation if we do our part to follow Him, if not, we remain alienated, right?

When we choose to harm another, we do so in recognition of the aim of the act.
Where a psychotic individual takes another’s life thinking that person is an alien being, he may not be held responsible for his actions.
When one abuses another, there may be explanations, but no excuse. What has been done, has been done. No ignorance here.

Ignorance is an excuse if it means that someone excuses the person from consequence, Aloysium. Are there cases of abuse where ignorance or blindness is not a crucial factor in the choice to abuse? Possibly. Can you come up with an example?

I am glad you are there to show Granny that she is not alone in her fears, I am sure that it is comforting. I do not share her fears, but I love and care for her.

Thanks

 

[grannymh]

For general information

The destruction of the original relationship between Adam and his Creator is in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 399.

I believe that is the only thing I need to reply to in post 412.

However, considering that free speech on a public message board allows all kinds of junk, I will answer genuine questions about the actual teachings of the Catholic Church which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. When one accepts the reality of Original Sin and is not influenced by discarded propositions or by new and improved alternatives which miss the truth, one will begin to recognize some simple logic as the base of our beautiful Catholic religion.

From post 1.
Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

I should probably add that the requirement for asking genuine questions is the firm belief in a real Adam, Original Sin, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ…as taught by the Catholic Church.

I added the Divinity of Jesus Christ because there was some interesting information about stealth Arianism on CAF.

 

[grannymh]

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag,

From post 412.
“An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.”

Anti-Catholic teaching is easily spotted by the words “allegory for.” In this example, the words “story of” are fine. But “allegory for the acquisition of conscience.” is definitely red flag material. (pun intended) The reality, not an allegory, of Adam is what is taught in the Catholic Church.

Actually, the words " allegory for the acquisition of conscience." are new to me. However, that bit of anti-Catholic teaching would have appeared sooner or later because there are all kinds of weird teachings about conscience floating on the public message board. It is the words “the acquisition of” which signals that human nature is under attack. Conscience comes with the package of human nature which is complete with rational soul, decomposing anatomy, and conscience.

One needs to be close to my age to recognize that the word “stained” (second sentence in red flag example) refers to the Catholic teachings on Original Sin. The word “stained” was used to describe the new state of Adam. Adam’s original state of holiness, aka sanctifying grace, was replaced by a state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. Read CCC 404-405. And if one really wants to know the full story, read CCC 355-421 and CCC 1732-1732 and following. Please first read *CCC *20-21 for the explanation of small print. Original Sin is a real serious free-willed action which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity. For some reason, there can be a difficulty with the word destroyed. Instead, one can use shattered, broke, or the words “immediately lose the grace of original holiness” which are in CCC 399.

“our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.” which ends the red flag example can refer to Catholic teachings about the results of Original Sin. However, I do suggest caution because sometimes “limited by blinded and unawareness” is used to attack human nature per se. When that happens, re-read CCC 356 and CCC 1730.

I thank you gentle readers for your patience with this rather long and intense example of a red flag alert for anti-Catholic teachings.

 

[OneSheep]

For general information

The destruction of the original relationship between Adam and his Creator is in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 399.

Good morning, Granny,

CCC 389 does not say that the relationship was destroyed.

However, considering that free speech on a public message board allows all kinds of junk, I will answer genuine questions about the actual teachings of the Catholic Church which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. When one accepts the reality of Original Sin and is not influenced by discarded propositions or by new and improved alternatives which miss the truth, one will begin to recognize some simple logic as the base of our beautiful Catholic religion.

From post 1.
Initial Axioms, undeniable truths according to Catholic Church teachings

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator.

Nothing of what I wrote contradicts these, Granny. If you do find something that you think does, let me know… Thanks.

I should probably add that the requirement for asking genuine questions is the firm belief in a real Adam, Original Sin, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ…as taught by the Catholic Church.

I added the Divinity of Jesus Christ because there was some interesting information about stealth Arianism on CAF.

Like I have repeated to you many times, Granny, if you find evidence of this “stealth Arianism” please let me know, and we can address it. I have yet to find any on the CAF. The priest who wrote about “stealth Arianism” seemed to want to instill fear, and was condemning of the behaviors of other priests. Please, Granny, do not elevate the positions of people who judge others. That, Granny, is anti-Catholic. We are called to forgive.

Do you get it, Granny? Condemnation of people, judging them, is against the Gospel.

That said, condemnation of people is a normal, human activity and there is a place for it, it serves to guide our own behaviors. When we realize that we have condemned, though, it is time to forgive the person, while still keeping in mind that the behaviors are to be avoided.

 

[OneSheep]

Gentle Readers

This is a red flag,

From post 412.
“An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience. In this definition, mankind is not stained in any way by any deed, but instead misdeed is a result of our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.”

Anti-Catholic teaching is easily spotted by the words “allegory for.” In this example, the words “story of” are fine. But “allegory for the acquisition of conscience.” is definitely red flag material. (pun intended) The reality, not an allegory, of Adam is what is taught in the Catholic Church.

Good Morning, dear Granny

There is a difference between “Anti-Catholic” and “a variation”, Granny. Cardinal Ratzinger presented a variation, calling the standard definition “easily mistaken” and offered a variation. It was not anti-Catholic, just a different wording that reflects a theology that is different from that of St. Anselm.

The variation I offered reflects a theology of unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, which were demonstrated from the cross. This theology is not anti-Catholic.

Actually, the words " allegory for the acquisition of conscience." are new to me. However, that bit of anti-Catholic teaching would have appeared sooner or later because there are all kinds of weird teachings about conscience floating on the public message board. It is the words “the acquisition of” which signals that human nature is under attack. Conscience comes with the package of human nature which is complete with rational soul, decomposing anatomy, and conscience.

There is nothing I wrote, Granny, that says that conscience does not come with the “human package”. In the story, A&E ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating that in their “original” state, they did not have a knowledge of good and evil. “Knowledge of good and evil” is what we normally attribute to the conscience.

One needs to be close to my age to recognize that the word “stained” (second sentence in red flag example) refers to the Catholic teachings on Original Sin. The word “stained” was used to describe the new state of Adam. Adam’s original state of holiness, aka sanctifying grace, was replaced by a state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. Read CCC 404-405. And if one really wants to know the full story, read CCC 355-421 and CCC 1732-1732 and following. Please first read *CCC *20-21 for the explanation of small print. Original Sin is a real serious free-willed action which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity. For some reason, there can be a difficulty with the word destroyed. Instead, one can use shattered, broke, or the words “immediately lose the grace of original holiness” which are in CCC 399.

Again, your use of the word “destroyed” is unsupported in the CCC. Let us look at CCC 399 carefully, Granny. It supports the “alternative” I offered:

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

As you can see, the “grace of holiness” is the awareness that God is not to be feared. A&E conceive a “distorted image”, that of a “jealous God” and end up fearing. If Jesus came to make payment to a resentful God, that is Jesus comes and dies to change God’s mind about man, that is the “first alternative” I offered. This alternative possibly contradicts CCC399 because it actually gives credence to the illusion that God is to be feared. In the second alternative I offered, Jesus comes and dies to change man’s mind about God, which actually is more attuned to CCC 399. Jesus comes to correct the distortion.

I repeat and stand by my statement: Both of the alternatives in the last paragraph should be accepted by Catholics. The first alternative above is natural, organic, and precipitates from the conscience itself. The second alternative I briefly described above allows for a God that is not feared for He loves and forgives unconditionally.

Now, will you put your flags down for a moment, read the last two paragraphs again, please, and try to understand?

“our God-given drives and capacities limited by blindness and unawareness.” which ends the red flag example can refer to Catholic teachings about the results of Original Sin. However, I do suggest caution because sometimes “limited by blinded and unawareness” is used to attack human nature per se. When that happens, re-read CCC 356 and CCC 1730.

You have it backwards, Granny. If I say that man’s nature is “stained”, indicating that his nature has some negative aspect, then this is an attack on the inherent goodness of man’s nature, whose goodness can be proven. If, instead, we say that man sins because of blindness and unawareness, this is a view that upholds the beauty and goodness of human nature.

Are you saying that statements affirming the goodness and beauty of man is an “attack”?

Try reading this post a few times, Granny, and then you may get it. Yes, it is a bit radical. Jesus is/was a radical. Have you anything else to offer against the alternatives I proposed?

God Bless

 

[grannymh]

Good morning, Granny,

CCC 389 does not say that the relationship was destroyed.

For the benefit of readers.
CCC 389 is an excellent paragraph especially the last line. I cannot claim that *CCC *389 is an explanation of how modern Arianism works. However, do take a second look at the word mystery.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”
Concerning the fact that Adam’s relationship with God was destroyed, I addressed that in post 415.
“Original Sin is a real serious free-willed action which destroyed the original relationship between Divinity and humanity. For some reason, there can be a difficulty with the word destroyed. Instead, one can use shattered, broke, or the words “immediately lose the grace of original holiness” which are in CCC 399.”
Maybe the problem is that people who have never learned the truths about the real Adam and God, do not realize that the “grace of original holiness” is the State of Sanctifying Grace" which is today’s description for being in a friendship relationship with God. Sanctifying Grace is sharing in the life of God. CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898

Because it takes me a long time to compose my thoughts, sometimes I check to see what is being posted. Today, I keep seeing “anti-Catholic”. I keep thinking that sooner or later, someone will describe the thing that is “anti-Catholic.” I am sure that people notice that the thing I refer to is teachings as in anti-Catholic teachings.

What is simply great, when I was peaking at the posts, is that someone mentioned the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is right on target with the thread’s title. I can do all kinds of posts based on Catholic teachings. Catholic teachings are full of common sense when it comes to understanding the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26.

Another good thing about this morning’s posts. OneSheep posted *CCC *399. Thank you. I bet I could do a post on the word distorted using Catholic teachings. However, I think that there are more people interested in the forbidden fruit.

Getting back to reality, mine, I have some other work to do besides enjoying posts. Because the shadow of the forbidden tree reaches all the way back to Genesis 1: 27, there are a lot of ways to approach the tasty organic fruit.

If someone has a favorite point of entrance to the Garden, please let me know.

 

[cfauster]

What does “bondage to sin” mean to you? To mean, it means “inclination”, and I do not observe this inclination. I see “capacity to do evil”, there is a difference…
I found C.S. Lewis in the Anselmian camp, but leaning into more of a depravity-approach. He does occasionally make some comments that hint openness to alternatives … Have a restful Sabbath.

Thanks! I am having a restful Sabbath, and hope you and all readers are too.

I agree that we should not project onto God our human notions of petty jealously, rage, and wrath, and I agree that the real essential characteristic of God is a love that is unconditional and really surpasses our human ability to understand, let alone emulate. We are called to conform our lives to the model shown us by Christ. Through God’s grace and forgiveness we have a sure hope of sharing in Christ’s resurrection unless we divorce ourselves from God and insist on refusing God’s grace.

Perhaps where we differ is in our assessments of our current state. I wish it were easier for us to overcome our tendency/inclination to mistrust God. But I think we really are very alienated from God because of sin. Alas, our sin problem is more than just a capacity to sin. It’s so serious that something pretty radical, costly, and unique had to be done to make our “rescue” possible, and only God could do it. And, God did.

Below is how a Lutheran theologian I like puts it; I added the bold font to emphasize the little part of the following that I suspect you might not accept, and that perhaps grannymh and I agree is essential truth that should be acknowledged. But all the rest, OneSheep, I’ll bet you would agree with, no?

"The fundamental human problem is failure to trust in God above anything else —to obey the First Commandment. Paul sets this out clearly in Romans 1, where refusal to honor and give thanks to God as the Creator—Sin with a capital “S”—has as its consequence all the small “s” sins that corrupt relationships among people. It is idolatry—“worship[ing] and serv[ing] the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25)—that is the root sin…

So what is needed for atonement to take place is elimination of trust in false gods and creation of trust in the true God. That immediately highlights a serious defect of most approaches to atonement. They may speak about Christ’s death as a ransom, as satisfaction of God’s honor, or as payment of a penalty or victory, but say little or nothing about people’s faith being turned from idols to the true God. That happens after the supposed atoning work has taken place. For example Anselm, after describing the way in which he thinks the death of Christ restores God’s honor, pictures God inviting a sinner to accept the benefits of this work by faith. But that work apparently has no role in bringing about such faith…

The idea of an abrupt fall from perfection has been widely held in the western church. The tradition represented in today’s Orthodox churches is rather different. There Adam and Eve are pictured as having been created in an immature state and expected to grow. Irenaeus thought that Adam was a young child, intellectually immature, while Athanasius saw our first ancestors as being at the beginning of a history which, with divine guidance, would lead them to full communion with God…

However,** this idea of an initially childlike condition of humanity also tends toward a downplaying of the seriousness of the human condition.** It is one thing to say that the first humans should not be judged too harshly because of their spiritual immaturity and another not to recognize the extent of the alienation from God that would result from that in later generations.

… humanity was soon “lost in the woods”—hopelessly astray as far as human possibilities are concerned. (Which is simply to say that we can’t save ourselves.) Creation was becoming more and more corrupt. If God’s purpose was to be reached, the spiritual course of the world would have to be reoriented. If I want to go from Akron to Cleveland, I can take I-77 north. If I’m not paying attention and get on that interstate going south, I won’t get there by continuing to drive in the wrong direction. I need to turn around and start going back toward my destination.

This process of getting us turned back toward the goal is God’s work of new creation. In the biblical story it begins in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram. The grand purpose of this is for his people to become a blessing to all the families of the earth. The whole course of the history of his descendants from that point on through the Old Testament is a continual calling to people to turn away from the road that leads to destruction and to “return to the LORD, your God” (Joel 2:12-13). The word there for “return,” shubh, is the common Hebrew one meaning “repent.” Not just individuals but the whole of humanity is implored to stop moving away from God and get pointed back in the right direction.

Finally, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son” (Galatians 4:4) for the decisive work of reorientation. Given the usual fate of people who challenge idols, we can’t imagine that either the Father or the Son didn’t know that something like the cross lay ahead. It wouldn’t even require divine foreknowledge. Nevertheless, this wasn’t a matter of “divine child abuse,” as atonement is sometimes caricatured. It was a matter of the Father willingly giving up his Son and the Son of God accepting suffering and death in order not only to save sinners but to reorient creation toward its goal."

 

[Richca]

What Ratzinger says (official English translation by Boniface Ramsey, OP):

Now, I am posting this as an example of another way of looking at “original sin”. I don’t completely agree with this example. Because 1. If sin is wanting to make people a god, then that would be a god that rejects relationships. That is not the God we know. 2. A person can indeed behave in the world as he or she ought, even if the world is a relational mess. I do agree that we “inherit” a relational mess.

What we also inherit is a capacity to be blind, be motivated to get the things that we innately desire, and have fears and many other emotions, as well as a conscience that compels us to punish wrongdoing. We are also born ignorant. With all of that “nature” going on, people get hurt. As far as I am concerned, all of these add up to a capacity to do evil, and we can include these in what we call “original sin”.

That said, the question is “Why are some people and even groups of people so adamant about their version of original sin?”

A: People’s notions of original sin are often the crux of faith itself. If the individual’s faith depends on a particular definition of original sin, then a threat to the definition is threat to faith itself.

As for me, I am not married to a particular definition. My faith does not depend on any writings concerning original sin.

I think Grannymh is simply stating what the Catholic Church teaches about original sin and this teaching is rather quite clear and simple in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent also dogmatically defined the Church’s teaching concerning original sin. Now, the definition of the theological virtue of catholic faith is that we hold to whatever the Catholic Church proposes for our belief as divinely revealed by God for the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. Consequently, Grannymh is simply holding to the catholic faith and what the Church proposes for our belief concerning the dogma of original sin which concerns the first sin of the human race committed by an individual Adam [and Eve], the first parents of the human race, and which the effects of this original sin are passed on to all the children descended from Adam and Eve which is rather quite clear from observation especially concerning death.

I am not aware of an alternative version concerning the doctrine of the Church on original sin in any of the Church’s official teaching and documents. Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear concerning the dogma of original sin which is taken from the sources of divine revelation especially Sacred Scripture which is the word of God. A so-called alternative version of original sin contrary to the catholic faith is one’s own private interpretation of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church and which cannot be called catholic faith. For Christ left to the magisterium of the Church to be the authentic interpreter of the sources of divine revelation, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; for St Peter says “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation” (2 Peter: 1:20).

Our faith in the dogma of original sin rests on the word of God and the Church’s authentic and true interpretation of the word of God, that is, divine revelation. Divine revelation is the highest truth for it is God revealing and God is Truth. I honestly do not understand how you can say, as a catholic, that your faith does not depend on any writings concerning original sin for the very doctrine of original sin is a revealed truth from God contained in Holy Scripture, the word of God. I can only say that it appears you espouse a private interpretation or your own view concerning original sin but the catholic faith obliges us not to hold to our own private views concerning the faith but what the Church proposes for our belief as divinely revealed which Grannymh is holding too as is only right for a catholic who recognizes that what God has revealed must obviously be the truth while human intellects can error.

 

[Richca]

You have it backwards, Granny. If I say that man’s nature is “stained”, indicating that his nature has some negative aspect, then this is an attack on the inherent goodness of man’s nature, whose goodness can be proven. If, instead, we say that man sins because of blindness and unawareness, this is a view that upholds the beauty and goodness of human nature.

 

[Aloysium]

hmmm. “Anti-Catholic” is not an insult? My mistake. Anxiety is a fear. What do you fear? Forgivness is very important. God forgives unconditionally. What do you mean by “brings evil into ourselves”? Can you describe the mechanism? Sin is alienation from our own love of God, so there is some damage, yes. Sin is alienation, it has its own consequence. If a person is a slave to his appetites, he is receiving the consequences. Jesus freed us from the alienation if we do our part to follow Him, if not, we remain alienated, right? Ignorance is an excuse if it means that someone excuses the person from consequence, Aloysium. Are there cases of abuse where ignorance or blindness is not a crucial factor in the choice to abuse? Possibly. Can you come up with an example? I am glad you are there to show Granny that she is not alone in her fears, I am sure that it is comforting. I do not share her fears, but I love and care for her. Thanks

I thought “antiCatholic” was applied to what you avow to be the truth, that it goes against Catholic teaching. I didn’t hear it being said that you were against Catholics.

You don’t seem to grasp the Catholic understanding of the nature of sin.

Sin in me fears God. I am in awe at the His power and beauty as revealed in creation.

I have not really thought of the possibility that God would not forgive. If one confesses one’s sins, repents and reconciles, it is not an issue.

Evil is an absence of good. When one fails to love one’s neighbour, it causes hurt not only to the person who is deprived of a possible good, but also to oneself.

I am going to skip over your many questions to address the issue of abuse. Let me school you on this son. Abusers know exactly what they are doing. The harm that is done to people by others can last a lifetime, spanning generations and having an impact that ripples through society. So much suffering and brokenness, as a result of the actions of another, forgiven or not.

 

[pocaracas]

Hi guys!
Granny introduced me to this thread, by PM, and someone mentioned that J.C. was a sacrificial lamb, so I thought of telling you my view on the subject.
It’s not something new… I know I’ve read about this elsewhere but it may be a perspective which not all of you are aware.
It is an outside perspective… non christian, for sure…

The story of Adam goes as God created him and gave him a few instructions to follow… the poor fella didn’t even know right from wrong… but had to follow those rules, for some reason…
Anyway, he ate the forbidden fruit, found out about right and wrong and got tainted with the stain of original sin… please correct me on any misunderstanding I may have on this subject.

God punished Adam, Eve and every other human descendant of theirs with this mark of sin.

A few years later, along comes God made human to tell everyone who would listen about how to correctly interpret the stories in the OT, right?
And things went according to plan, when he stirred up too much trouble with the ruling classes, and got himself nailed to a cross.
With this nailing to the cross, he somehow atoned for that original sin thing.

Here’s the bit that spurred this reply (this is part of what OneSheep quotes of Ratzinger):

Jesus comes to save us, to free us from what we deserve by “taking the hit” from the cross; like a sacrificial lamb offered to appease God, a “debt was paid”. This is Christ’s incarnation that serves to change God’s view toward man."

The “sacrificial lamb”… almost makes it sound like christianity is about human sacrifice… yikes! Good thing you guys didn’t turn out that way!

Anyway, onward! Jesus (god) came to the world to pay back the debt to god, created by god, when he expelled Adam from Eden…
If we are to assume that god already knew about Jesus when he expelled Adam, then… why make all those people in between think they had such a sin on them?
Why create such a sin in the first place?
Shouldn’t god, the all-knowing, already know what it was to suffer as a human?.. why would he have to put up a show for humans?
Couldn’t he have just… I don’t know… told someone… everyone… about it?

 

[Aloysium]

Hi guys!
Granny introduced me to this thread, by PM, and someone mentioned that J.C. was a sacrificial lamb, so I thought of telling you my view on the subject. . . Couldn’t he have just… I don’t know… told someone… everyone… about it?

There’s so much fail in this that it is impossible for me to reply. You aren’t taking this forum seriously (show some respect dude - if it is an attempt at humour, I ain’t laughin’), so it is difficult to take you seriously.

For what it is worth to you:
Existence is utterly and totally fantastic. At the foundations of our being is an infinite sea of compassion which includes all time and all places. It emerges from outside of time as an act of creation by a transcendent being, who is Beauty, Goodness, Truth and Love. The Triune Godhead, complete in itself, has brought us into existence that we may participate in the joy of Its eternal life. How is it, given this reality that you will suffer and die? Who are you, really? Where do you come from? Wherein lies your being? Where will you find the meaning to go on? How has this all happened? How are we to be healed of this spiritual malady? If you want answers to these sorts of questions, you will not find them in math or science books. History, sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy and other humanities will tell you what other people think, as I am telling you what I think. Where is your truth? How will you answer yourself? You can go with the times and fuhgettaboutit, it’s your life. Plenty of trolls here already and you can join them, or try to learn something. I do understand what you have been fed by secular, consumerist society; you are repeating oft stated nonsense. Hoping you can find the way out.

Now, if there is one question you would want answered, what would it be?

 

[pocaracas]

There’s so much fail in this that it is impossible for me to reply. You aren’t taking this forum seriously (show some respect dude - if it is an attempt at humour, I ain’t laughin’), so it is difficult to take you seriously.

I’m sorry that you feel that way…

It was no attempt at humor, nor did I intend any disrespect… Maybe it’s my lighthearted writing style that gives you those impressions…?
I just tried to explain how I see the stories (Adam and Jesus) as they have been explained to me in the past… and how they can be seen to relate to each other…
If it’s so full of fail, then maybe someone can explain where that fail lies.
I aim to learn.

For what it is worth to you:
Existence is utterly and totally fantastic. At the foundations of our being is an infinite sea of compassion which includes all time and all places. It emerges from outside of time as an act of creation by a transcendent being, who is Beauty, Goodness, Truth and Love. The Triune Godhead, complete in itself, has brought us into existence that we may participate in the joy of Its eternal life. How is it, given this reality that you will suffer and die? Who are you, really? Where do you come from? Wherein lies your being? Where will you find the meaning to go on? How has this all happened? How are we to be healed of this spiritual malady? If you want answers to these sorts of questions, you will not find them in math or science books. History, sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy and other humanities will tell you what other people think, as I am telling you what I think. Where is your truth? How will you answer yourself? You can go with the times and fuhgettaboutit, it’s your life. Plenty of trolls here already and you can join them, or try to learn something. I do understand what you have been fed by secular, consumerist society; you are repeating oft stated nonsense. Hoping you can find the way out.

Now, if there is one question you would want answered, what would it be?

And this pertains to the thread… how?
I remember reading a rule which strongly discouraged derailing threads… I’m not looking forward to a ban…
If you want, we can have that conversation over the PM system, or on some dedicated thread.

 

[grannymh]

I’m sorry that you feel that way…

It was no attempt at humor, nor did I intend any disrespect… Maybe it’s my lighthearted writing style that gives you those impressions…?
I just tried to explain how I see the stories (Adam and Jesus) as they have been explained to me in the past… and how they can be seen to relate to each other…
If it’s so full of fail, then maybe someone can explain where that fail lies.
I aim to learn.

In my humble opinion, this is where the fail lies.

Practically speaking, the Adam and Eve version in post 423, is the Christian version that is often, not always, presented on CAF. Yes, there are a few posters who do their best to correct some of the details. Then four weeks later, the above version staring the stupid Adam is back.

Here are recent examples.

From post 412 in this thread. Originally in post 318
“An alternative definition of original sin holds that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory for the acquisition of conscience.”

From post 417.
“There is nothing I wrote, Granny, that says that conscience does not come with the “human package”. In the story, A&E ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating that in their “original” state, they did not have a knowledge of good and evil. “Knowledge of good and evil” is what we normally attribute to the conscience.”

Now, to me, it does not make much difference if the conscience which has the knowledge of good and evil comes after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or if comes as an acquisition. The conclusion is that Adam and Eve “ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, indicating that in their “original” state, they did not have a knowledge of good and evil.”

Guess what. No matter how many Christians and non-Christians call Adam originally stupid about good and evil, that is not, repeat not, Catholic teaching.

If we accept the fact that Adam was actually smart about good and evil, it is easy to assume that he was smart in other things. He could have Ph.D. knowledge about the science of agriculture for example. His wife, being equally smart about good and evil, could also be smart enough to handle a household full of children, the older ones doing chores.

It is true that the effects of Original Sin wounded Adam and Eve’s human nature. But, there is no indication that the so-called punishment of Original Sin took their brains away. If we start with a healthy, muscular Adam who has a rational thinking brain, how would that change the second half of post 423? When Jesus arrived, what would the people be like? Would all have the same story of the events in the Garden?

 

[Aloysium]

I’m sorry that you feel that way…
It was no attempt at humor, nor did I intend any disrespect… Maybe it’s my lighthearted writing style that gives you those impressions…?
I just tried to explain how I see the stories (Adam and Jesus) as they have been explained to me in the past… and how they can be seen to relate to each other…
If it’s so full of fail, then maybe someone can explain where that fail lies.
I aim to learn.
And this pertains to the thread… how?
I remember reading a rule which strongly discouraged derailing threads… I’m not looking forward to a ban…
If you want, we can have that conversation over the PM system, or on some dedicated thread.

While I do understand is that the way you conceptualize Catholic teachings is absurd, In have a sense of where you have picked it up. Realize you are speaking about God and His relationship with humanity. I think you would agree it is disrespectful.
To understand the story of Adam and Eve, you have to understand who God is and who we are. I didn’t want to derail the thread either. I just wanted to narrow things down to where a reply wasn’t ten pages long.

 

[grannymh]

While I do understand is that the way you conceptualize Catholic teachings is absurd, In have a sense of where you have picked it up. Realize you are speaking about God and His relationship with humanity. I think you would agree it is disrespectful.
To understand the story of Adam and Eve, you have to understand who God is and who we are. I didn’t want to derail the thread either. I just wanted to narrow things down to where a reply wasn’t ten pages long.

This is the first time I have heard someone say out loud that to understand the story of Adam and Eve, one has to understand who God is and who we are. Thank you.

I tried to get across the difference between Creator and creature in another thread. It looks like that idea failed. No matter. Understanding who God is, even in our limited way, is important in this thread. Once that is established by presenting various meanings, we will be able to sort out the questions in post 423.

I continue going back and forth on post 423 as you can see in post 426. This time, I noticed a lack of knowledge about the Incarnation and the difficult fact that Jesus is actually true God and true Man. In grade school when I learned about Original Sin, the very next thing I learned was the Incarnation.

You have a lot of knowledge and, just as important, you have deep feelings. I hope you will share.

 

[Aloysium]

I shouldn’t use my phone to post.
Sorry pocaracas.
If it isn’t my vision, it’s the spellcheck that conspires against clarity.
Hopefully I will have access to a computer and make more sense tomorrow.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks! I am having a restful Sabbath, and hope you and all readers are too.

I agree that we should not project onto God our human notions of petty jealously, rage, and wrath, and I agree that the real essential characteristic of God is a love that is unconditional and really surpasses our human ability to understand, let alone emulate. We are called to conform our lives to the model shown us by Christ. Through God’s grace and forgiveness we have a sure hope of sharing in Christ’s resurrection unless we divorce ourselves from God and insist on refusing God’s grace.

So far so good, cfauster.

Perhaps where we differ is in our assessments of our current state. I wish it were easier for us to overcome our tendency/inclination to mistrust God. But I think we really are very alienated from God because of sin. Alas, our sin problem is more than just a capacity to sin. It’s so serious that something pretty radical, costly, and unique had to be done to make our “rescue” possible, and only God could do it. And, God did.

hmmm. tendency toward mistrust? Only because of lack of awareness. However, we are born with a lack of awareness, so, well, maybe. There was a lack of awareness, and God fixed that, yes. Tendency? Sounds too much like “inclination”. An inclination to hurt people, no, not usually. An inclination to get the wrong impression about God? Well, sort of. I actually think that God approves of the* illusion* of His wrath. It serves a purpose in our development. Does that make sense? When empathy and love in the human are developed, the illusion no longer serves a purpose. I may be leaving a bit out on this picture.

Below is how a Lutheran theologian I like puts it; I added the bold font to emphasize the little part of the following that I suspect you might not accept, and that perhaps grannymh and I agree is essential truth that should be acknowledged. But all the rest, OneSheep, I’ll bet you would agree with, no?

"The fundamental human problem is failure to trust in God above anything else —to obey the First Commandment. Paul sets this out clearly in Romans 1, where refusal to honor and give thanks to God as the Creator—Sin with a capital “S”—has as its consequence all the small “s” sins that corrupt relationships among people. It is idolatry—“worship[ing] and serv[ing] the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25)—that is the root sin…

So what is needed for atonement to take place is elimination of trust in false gods and creation of trust in the true God. That immediately highlights a serious defect of most approaches to atonement. They may speak about Christ’s death as a ransom, as satisfaction of God’s honor, or as payment of a penalty or victory, but say little or nothing about people’s faith being turned from idols to the true God. That happens after the supposed atoning work has taken place. For example Anselm, after describing the way in which he thinks the death of Christ restores God’s honor, pictures God inviting a sinner to accept the benefits of this work by faith. But that work apparently has no role in bringing about such faith…

The idea of an abrupt fall from perfection has been widely held in the western church. The tradition represented in today’s Orthodox churches is rather different. There Adam and Eve are pictured as having been created in an immature state and expected to grow. Irenaeus thought that Adam was a young child, intellectually immature, while Athanasius saw our first ancestors as being at the beginning of a history which, with divine guidance, would lead them to full communion with God…

However,** this idea of an initially childlike condition of humanity also tends toward a downplaying of the seriousness of the human condition.** It is one thing to say that the first humans should not be judged too harshly because of their spiritual immaturity and another not to recognize the extent of the alienation from God that would result from that in later generations.

… humanity was soon “lost in the woods”—hopelessly astray as far as human possibilities are concerned. (Which is simply to say that we can’t save ourselves.) Creation was becoming more and more corrupt. If God’s purpose was to be reached, the spiritual course of the world would have to be reoriented. If I want to go from Akron to Cleveland, I can take I-77 north. If I’m not paying attention and get on that interstate going south, I won’t get there by continuing to drive in the wrong direction. I need to turn around and start going back toward my destination.
… .

Lots to address, there, but it works, mostly. “Sin” and “atonement” would have to be carefully defined in each usage, in order to distinguish whether or not we are addressing a God who loves and forgives unconditionally. In addition, the anthropology I am trying to present is one in which the human is inclined to love and do the right thing, always, and does so in intent. In effect, man often fails because of lack of awareness or triggered blindness.

Like I said above, and this needs a lot of explanation (maybe) I think it may be God’s will that the human projects wrath on Him, that such an illusion serves a purpose. It could very well be that there was a significant point in history 2000 years ago that the illusion could be allowed to be corrected. The illusion served a tribal existence, Revelation serves a multi-tribal society. God had to come and make the correction before the tribal instinct made multi-tribal society impossible. . This is all speculation.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi guys!
Granny introduced me to this thread, by PM, and someone mentioned that J.C. was a sacrificial lamb, so I thought of telling you my view on the subject.
It’s not something new… I know I’ve read about this elsewhere but it may be a perspective which not all of you are aware.
It is an outside perspective… non christian, for sure…

The story of Adam goes as God created him and gave him a few instructions to follow… the poor fella didn’t even know right from wrong… but had to follow those rules, for some reason…
Anyway, he ate the forbidden fruit, found out about right and wrong and got tainted with the stain of original sin… please correct me on any misunderstanding I may have on this subject.

God punished Adam, Eve and every other human descendant of theirs with this mark of sin.

A few years later, along comes God made human to tell everyone who would listen about how to correctly interpret the stories in the OT, right?
And things went according to plan, when he stirred up too much trouble with the ruling classes, and got himself nailed to a cross.
With this nailing to the cross, he somehow atoned for that original sin thing.

Here’s the bit that spurred this reply (this is part of what OneSheep quotes of Ratzinger):

The “sacrificial lamb”… almost makes it sound like christianity is about human sacrifice… yikes! Good thing you guys didn’t turn out that way!

Anyway, onward! Jesus (god) came to the world to pay back the debt to god, created by god, when he expelled Adam from Eden…
If we are to assume that god already knew about Jesus when he expelled Adam, then… why make all those people in between think they had such a sin on them?
Why create such a sin in the first place?
Shouldn’t god, the all-knowing, already know what it was to suffer as a human?.. why would he have to put up a show for humans?
Couldn’t he have just… I don’t know… told someone… everyone… about it?

Hi Pocaracas

That part wasn’t a Ratzinger quote, that was my explanation of how much of Christianity views the incarnation/crucifixion, for which both Cardinal Ratzinger and my own explanation provide alternatives.

The point is that when people believe in a Creator, then that Creator is perceived to get angry once in awhile, especially if the perceiving person happens to be feeling especially guilty at the time. The next logical step is that some punishment from God is is perceived as overdue (i.e. crops are going bad and natural disasters, disease, etc), so perhaps the Creator can be appeased. For this reason most native religions had some offerings to appease the Creator, and the greater the offering, the greater the appeasement. It all makes sense from a human/projection perspective, right?

So, try to find a post of mine with the “second alternative” that Granny made a lot of fuss about. It gives a theology with God loving and forgiving unconditionally. She doesn’t like it.

If you can’t find it, let me know. There are a lot of words flying around here…

 

[OneSheep]

A stain of sin on the soul is one of the effects of sin as St Thomas Aquinas teaches and as we can gather from Holy Scripture " That he might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle" (Ephes. 5:27) and "Is it a small thing to you sinned with Beelphegor, and the stain of that crime remaineth in us to this day? (Joshua 22:17).

Hello Richca

I don’t need to believe in a doctrine of original sin in order to say the creed, believe in Jesus, accept Eucharist, or serve the body or Christ. It has no bearing on my faith. I have no use for it.

Now, concerning the “stain” perhaps you could provide evidence of a stain. What does the stain look like? What was its direct effect? Please be very specific.

The problem is, much writing refers to it without actually describing it. It is upheld as being there, but the only proof is the “effects”. Well, perhaps the effects are not because of a “stain” at all. In my observation, the effects being pointed to have a different cause.

Thanks, I look forward to your response.