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

[OneSheep]

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.

Granny,

The significance of the incarnation depending on the doctrine of original sin is going to depend on the beholder. To some people, the incarnation has great significance without the doctrine. In fact, the idea of “original sin” was not around for the first 300 years of Christianity, right? And even after that, it was not universally known. Yet, faith in Jesus persisted.

Thank you for taking away the red flags. I think that you can see that you are just as capable of adding your own flavor (i.e. “destroyed relationship”) to doctrine. In addition, CCC 399 definitely appears to support the “second alternative” I presented, though you did not acknowledge this. You seem to be silent now, and I will take that as understanding, and not “anti-Catholic” after all. If you still think something I wrote is “anti-Catholic” please respond specifically to my explanations.

I am still waiting for your criticism of the “first alternative” I presented, an approach which Pope Benedict also criticized. I am left with nothing but to conclude that you agree with me that it is an acceptable alternative. Cool!

 

[pocaracas]

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.

hmmm… “the stupid Adam”? Not exactly what I was thinking…
I was working under the presupposition that Adam had no concept of good and evil, of right and wrong. This is not an easy thing for us to understand.
But, if he didn’t have the knowledge of right and wrong, how could he know that not following a rule was wrong? Even if the rule came from the only “master” he knew of…
I don’t think an Adam would have been stupid… I think he just didn’t have the required machinery with which to reason the potential consequences of not following the rules.
But this would just make the punishment even harsher… Sure, he’d be aware of why, after the fact…

But if he was aware of good and evil, prior to eating the fruit, then… what’s the point of the story?

However, my original point brings us closer to Jesus…
At the time of Adam, God imposed the punishment, the “original sin” - and, sometime later, God (Jesus) came to the middle east to suffer himself and thus atone for that original sin.
Almost seems like God was just toying with the people that came in between those two events… not to mention the confusion unleashed since.
I guess I’m asking what is the sense of such an action?

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?

It seems to me that, in the place where Jesus appeared, most of the population was jewish… so, most of them should have been aware of the tale of Adam pretty much as it is found in the OT/Torah.

 

[pocaracas]

I think I managed to get most of your post, even knowing you wrote it on your “auto-incorrect” phone.

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.

I am trying to understand god’s motivation and reasoning behind both events - Adam and Jesus. How one creates a problem that the other solves.
If that is disrespectful, I apologize. I certainly do not mean to be so.

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.

Well then… who is God? (to me this, question is so malformed, it’s painful, but let’s see what comes out of it)

 

[pocaracas]

Hi OneSheep

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.

Ah… true that… my bad.
Diagonal reading is definitely not for me.

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?

Like you wouldn’t believe!

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…

I don’t have much time to search for it…
First attempt proved fruitless…
But I am curious about that and why granny doesn’t like 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.

As a little side note: if you replace “stain” with “god” in this quote, you have described the position of many atheists.

 

[davidv]

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.

I would then say that saying the creed in this manner is just a list of empty words.

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.

 

[davidv]

Granny,

The significance of the incarnation depending on the doctrine of original sin is going to depend on the beholder.

Only in a world that does not contain objective reality.

To some people, the incarnation has great significance without the doctrine. In fact, the idea of “original sin” was not around for the first 300 years of Christianity, right? And even after that, it was not universally known. Yet, faith in Jesus persisted.

Thank you for taking away the red flags. I think that you can see that you are just as capable of adding your own flavor (i.e. “destroyed relationship”) to doctrine. In addition, CCC 399 definitely appears to support the “second alternative” I presented, though you did not acknowledge this. You seem to be silent now, and I will take that as understanding, and not “anti-Catholic” after all. If you still think something I wrote is “anti-Catholic” please respond specifically to my explanations.

I am still waiting for your criticism of the “first alternative” I presented, an approach which Pope Benedict also criticized. I am left with nothing but to conclude that you agree with me that it is an acceptable alternative. Cool!

 

[OneSheep]

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.

Hi Granny,

I am actually with you on this, but this again makes the story allegorical. Yes, how could A&E be fully human without having already developed a conscience, that having been “part of the package”?

First of all, the story is obviously an old one, it makes reference to “the gods” which indicates that it was written pre-monotheism. I think the story very simply attempts to answer some very pressing questions and wraps up the answers in a package that leaves humanity to blame for all of their worst headaches.

Here are some of the original questions, I think, that the story attempts to address:

1. Why do we have death?
2. Why do humans have so much pain in childbirth, and animals not?
3. Why do we have to work so hard?
4. Why do humans feel shame, and animals not?
5. Why do humans have all of these rules, and animals not?
6. Why isn’t life always like a “garden of Eden”? Why would our God who cares about our tribe so much not just make life a cake-walk?
7. Why does it seem like women are so afraid of snakes?

The most important questions, IMO of course, that the story attempts to answer are no.s 1 and 4 above. And, going back to the “humanity feels guilty” theme, it gives some substance as a reason for that guilt. After all, everything we have to put up with, even death, cannot be our Creator’s fault, it has to be our fault. It is a means of giving God all of the benefit of the doubt, and humbling ourselves.

A somewhat more political approach, and perhaps pocaracas would agree, is to see the story as a means of “controlling the masses”. If we can continue to assert that people are guilty, guilty, guilty, of all this, it sets the stage for our God-given leaders to have more power, given that they are selected by God (a common tribal belief, promoted by the leaders). Since cooperation was so vital in tribal days, such a political assertion would be understandably useful for survival of the tribe. One of the main themes: “Obey!”

What I find so fascinating about the story is that God behaves exactly as our conscience does. Our conscience sets up a rule “don’t do this”, and when we violate our own rules, we automatically feel guilt (punishment in the form of some negative neurotransmission). God in genesis 3 sets up the rule and then punishes the violation. The only thing that was left out was that our mind also automatically rewards good behavior, we get a shot of “happy neurotransmitters” when we stick to our rules in the face of temptation to do otherwise. However, since this aspect of the conscience is not problematic for humanity, it doesn’t end up in the story. If it did, it would be written something like “and God was very pleased that A&E were following the rule, and gave them gifts.”

Now, before you have an angry reaction to all of this speculation, keep in mind that we Christians are supposed to be “free”. Freedom of thought and speculation is not a sin. I am not pushing any of this as doctrine, but I am suggesting that this is a means of making sense out of Genesis 3.

God Bless you, Granny

 

[OneSheep]

I would then say that saying the creed in this manner is just a list of empty words.

Good morning, David

Really? Please explain.

My saying the creed is a list of empty words? Isn’t that a bit presumptive? You must know my mind…

Let me suggest a more charitable way of saying what you want to say:

“OneSheep, if it were me saying the creed and not caring deeply about the doctrine of original sin, then the whole creed would be meaningless in this way…”

That way, David, you could explain why o.s. is so important to you, without presuming “emptiness” on my part.

So, if you explain why os is so meaningful to you, I can explain why it is not, and then we make no presumptions. Fair enough?

Thanks, bro

 

[davidv]

Good morning, David

Really? Please explain.

If a basis tenant of the faith is dismissed, what use is the creed?

My saying the creed is a list of empty words? Isn’t that a bit presumptive?

No presumption at all.

You must know my mind…

Only to the extent you reveal it.

Let me suggest a more charitable way of saying what you want to say:

“OneSheep, if it were me saying the creed and not caring deeply about the doctrine of original sin, then the whole creed would be meaningless in this way…”

That way, David, you could explain why o.s. is so important to you, without presuming “emptiness” on my part.

So, if you explain why os is so meaningful to you, I can explain why it is not, and then we make no presumptions. Fair enough?

Thanks, bro

Why is what it means to me so important? What is more important is what it means to the Church. What does the Church say it means?

 

[OneSheep]

Hi OneSheep

Ah… true that… my bad.
Diagonal reading is definitely not for me.

I don’t have much time to search for it…
First attempt proved fruitless…
But I am curious about that and why granny doesn’t like it.

As a little side note: if you replace “stain” with “god” in this quote, you have described the position of many atheists.

Hi pocaracas,

It is post 264 on page 18 of the “Does any human ever K&WRG” thread.

The position you describe of many atheists is understandable given the violent ways that people defend their positions on God. It starts with people thinking finding a truth that fulfills them, and so the whole world makes sense, then add the layer of “this version of truth makes everyone behave” and you have people fighting for imposition of Sharia law or what have you.

Indeed, some people on this thread are so protective of the doctrine of original sin that they would suggest that people who do not give it huge emphasis as a cornerstone of our faith do not have faith at all. It’s understandable, but not charitable, and communicates a lack of awareness concerning different peoples’ ways of looking at the Cross and Jesus’ importance. I wonder, a bit, if those of such stubborn opinion would rather have the rest of us kicked out.

Thank God, our Popes over the last few decades have seen through the theological xenophobia and have taken a pastoral approach. Pope Francis is the best one yet in this regard.

I must add, BTW, if you were Christian, it seems to me you would be the kind of Christian that would be an improvement to Christianity. I do not find you closed-minded at all, and your posts have been quite charitable. I am sure you make a great moderator where that is your role.

Thanks for the response.

 

[OneSheep]

If a basis tenant of the faith is dismissed, what use is the creed?

No presumption at all.

Only to the extent you reveal it.

Hello again David!

And where did I reveal to you that the words of the creed are empty in my mind? You presumed, please consider owning up to it.

Why is what it means to me so important? What is more important is what it means to the Church. What does the Church say it means?

What it means to you is so important because you are the one who is reacting to my thoughts about the doctrine, and sorry, bro, you are not representing “the Church”. That would be a rather large hat to wear, right?

So, let me tell you what is some importance to me, starting with CCC 399:

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.

So, loss of “original holiness” is a matter of “conceiving a distorted image” which Jesus comes to correct. This is a wonderful way of looking at the incarnation, in my view.

However, when we talk about people being “stained”, there is something negative about God’s beautiful creation. I do not see a stain. In fact, I am saying that part of the “distortion” is not just about the way we see God, but in the way that we see man. Jesus not only straightens us out about God, He straightens us out about man!

So, if you would rather not explain why os is so important to you, tackle this question instead: What is this “stain”? What is it that is negative about the human? You can present evidence of a stain, and I will show you that it is not.

Give it a shot! Don’t go away!

 

[grannymh]

hmmm… “the stupid Adam”? Not exactly what I was thinking…
I was working under the presupposition that Adam had no concept of good and evil, of right and wrong. This is not an easy thing for us to understand.

May I offer some questions as a clarification of what you are saying.

The general accepted definition, on the scientific side, adapted from Aristotle or some philosopher, is that man is a rational animal. Humans are basically in the animal kingdom so to speak. We belong with the vertebrates – right?

Starting with the reasonable concept that we are rational animals, what does rational entail or include or instigate, et cetera ? What does our intellective mind do?

 

[pocaracas]

Hi pocaracas,

It is post 264 on page 18 of the “Does any human ever K&WRG” thread.

I see… I see now why granny (and others) is pissed at you!
None of those two views are in complete accordance with the standard catholic view.
Although, I must say, I like the way you think.
You can put yourself in someone else’s shoes and take it from there… that’s a great talent.

The position you describe of many atheists is understandable given the violent ways that people defend their positions on God. It starts with people thinking finding a truth that fulfills them, and so the whole world makes sense, then add the layer of “this version of truth makes everyone behave” and you have people fighting for imposition of Sharia law or what have you.

Most atheists out there would fit the description of agnostic, too…
We don’t know anything… we’re searching for answers… sadly, those provided by organized religion seem… like you say… “a means of “controlling the masses””, so there is a tendency to abhor the major religion where the atheist is raised.
Once you gain knowledge about other religions and see that pattern repeating… then it starts becoming obvious… although, I’m aware that religions don’t pop up in a vacuum - they seem to have evolved within particular communities and then, either through preaching or through war, or whatever, they get spread out.
Christianity is an example of a religion that spread out through preaching.
Islam did it through war… or so they say.

And now everyone can see the difference.

I must add, BTW, if you were Christian, it seems to me you would be the kind of Christian that would be an improvement to Christianity.

A one in 2 billion kind, huh?

I do not find you closed-minded at all, and your posts have been quite charitable. I am sure you make a great moderator where that is your role.

Thanks for the response.

You know… don’t tell them over there , but it’s not that difficult to moderate that site. We mostly keep trolls and spammers at bay.
Once in a while a difficult decision must be made concerning a member that has been contributing regularly… but most people behave. It helps, when the rules allow some name calling and thick skins are expected of the membership.

Thanks for all the patience with me.

 

[grannymh]

So, let me tell you what is some importance to me, starting with CCC 399:

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.

So, loss of “original holiness” is a matter of “conceiving a distorted image” which Jesus comes to correct. This is a wonderful way of looking at the incarnation, in my view.

Before you totally mess up, my suggestion is that you immediately, if not sooner, learn about the essential Catholic doctrine of the State of Sanctifying Grace. Adam and Eve’s State of Original Holiness is the State of Sanctifying Grace which means that Adam and Eve shared in the life of God. CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898.
And while you are learning about Catholicism, consider learning about the State of Mortal Sin, CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889.

Please know that these are charitable suggestions. No harm intended.

Obviously, this free speech public message board gives OneSheep the right to present CCC 399 according to his personal interpretation.

In that case, I suggest that gentle readers , who may be interested in Catholicism, should consider that “They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.” should be considered the result of an action – they become afraid because Adam’s action lost their State of Sanctifying Grace by committing a mortal sin aka Original Sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Before you totally mess up, my suggestion is that you immediately, if not sooner, learn about the essential Catholic doctrine of the State of Sanctifying Grace. Adam and Eve’s State of Original Holiness is the State of Sanctifying Grace which means that Adam and Eve shared in the life of God. CCC Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898.
And while you are learning about Catholicism, consider learning about the State of Mortal Sin, CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889.

Please know that these are charitable suggestions. No harm intended.

Obviously, this free speech public message board gives OneSheep the right to present CCC 399 according to his personal interpretation.

In that case, I suggest that gentle readers , who may be interested in Catholicism, should consider that “They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.” should be considered the result of an action – they become afraid because Adam’s action lost their State of Sanctifying Grace by committing a mortal sin aka Original Sin.

Thank you, Granny, for attempts at charity.

I would also prefer that your posts in response to me do not begin addressing me personally, as in a letter, then to turn to “the readers” like you are in the middle of some kind a performance. Certainly you do not treat people this way in person, as unfortunately the elderly are treated when discussing a condition and the doctor turns to his patient’s offspring and explains something as if the patient is oblivious. Just a pet peeve - it bugs me.

I’m going to sit with ccc399, as it pertains and supports the “second alternative” I mentioned. The definitions of mortal sin, etc. for the most part fall line with the “first alternative” I presented, and you have not objected to that wording, so all is good!

Any other fears, complaints, condemnations? If not, I will allow you to have this thread back for your own topics.
.
Thanks!

.

 

[simpleas]

Question

What did Adam and Eve know about God’s power, themselves as spiritually human creatures, the whole universe, before God said :

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

 

[grannymh]

Question

What did Adam and Eve know about God’s power, themselves as spiritually human creatures, the whole universe, before God said :

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

There are so many others who can do a better job explaining this unusual verse.

However, I believe contemporary confusion arises from the confusion about Adam’s human nature and subsequently the confusion about God and His original relationship with Adam.

How would you explain God and His original relationship with Adam? Personally, I believe that would be helpful. It may or may not be the kind of answer you are seeking, but it certainly would be helpful.

 

[grannymh]

How would you explain God and His original relationship with Adam?.

Studying God and His original relationship with Adam can begin with these truths from the opening post.

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.

The first thing we should notice is the repetition of "God as Creator in these three areas: Genesis 1: 1; Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 15-17.

Naturally, all kinds of logical thoughts can flow from the three initial axioms. Before presenting mine, I would like to have others chime in with their thoughts.

This is not a test.

 

[pocaracas]

Studying God and His original relationship with Adam can begin with these truths from the opening post.

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.

The first thing we should notice is the repetition of "God as Creator in these three areas: Genesis 1: 1; Genesis 1: 27 and Genesis 2: 15-17.

Naturally, all kinds of logical thoughts can flow from the three initial axioms. Before presenting mine, I would like to have others chime in with their thoughts.

This is not a test.

Tiny question: why must God’s existence be declared as an axiom?

 

[grannymh]

Tiny question: why must God’s existence be declared as an axiom?

Great question.

Because as OP, I am basing this thread on the teachings of the Catholic Church.


Please note.

Because the majority of information is based on the first three chapters of Genesis as taught by the Catholic Church, I have concluded after serious thought that the Sacred Scripture Forum is the better fit.

In fact, your very proper question, thank you, assures me that I should move the thesis of this thread to the Sacred Scripture Forum. You are definitely welcome to join the new thread knowing the conditions which will be similar, that is, I will use the Catholic Church as the foundation. This is proper on a free speech public message board.

Details of Switch.
At the moment there are none.

I am traveling and I need some quiet time. Hopefully, I will have everything in place quickly. However, the word quickly has never been associated with this granny.

Thank you all for your anticipated patience.

Blessings,
granny