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

[grannymh]

So I tried to capture what you were saying in premise-conclusion form. Everything is valid for sure except (C3) I’m sure it IS valid and follows from C1 and C2, but I just don’t remember the justification. When I have time I’ll pull down the logic books and see if I can work it out. Also, I simplified terms for the sake of the logic, but someone who was better at translating to logic could easily take the time and write it out more complex to be more explicit.

(P1) Adam is in Original Sin

(P2) If Adam is in Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin

(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans

(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.

(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in Original Sin (C1, C2)

(P1) Adam is in Original Sin
This is a far better place to start because it is an easier topic for non-believers to deal with. It is like the theatre where the audience practices a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

My original justification for “(C3) Humans are in Original Sin” was the first part of *CCC *404. This would work for a Catholic readership and possibly for non-believers because they can observe the unity of humankind. In the CCC 404 quote below, I put that “justification” in italics.

Please note that “Original Holiness” is the same as the State of Sanctifying Grace. (CCC 375 and Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

Please note that this granny brain can change direction in a New York minute.

As I again study CCC 404, I put in bold the references to human nature. Perhaps a better path to justification would be to look at Adam’s human nature as in (P1) Adam is in Original Sin. It seems to me that Adam’s human nature would be non-threatening to someone with a willing suspension of disbelief. On the other hand, I am amazed at the various Catholic discussions regarding Adam’s human nature.

Because I am very interested in the original relationship between humanity and Divinity, we would need to examine Adam’s nature both pre-Fall and post-Fall.

Paragraph 404, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.
Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of** a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.** And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[wmw]

There is no way for me to know if “Adam is in Original Sin” is a good place to start if I don’t know where we are going. The End Game must come first or any start or first direction is unknown.

Even as I try to parse this (quote below) I’m not sure which “why” you mean to seek out.

…We suffer from " original sin " because God deemed it just.

As a former journalist, I would go back to that sentence and find out why. In my humble opinion, in this decade, formal logic is the best approach to the why? Obviously, there are other methods just as valid. Considering that the subject matter, “original relationship between humanity and Divinity” is very broad, naturally there is a wide range of possible discussions. All discussions are appreciated. Hopefully, my discussion on in depth logic (per thread title) and theological truths will also find appreciation.

Is it, Why we suffer from " original sin "? or is it, Why God deemed it just?

Yes (both), is not a proper answer, because a logical argument needs to stay simple and not try to cover too much ground all at once.

Or are you totally satisfied with Rubarb’s conclusion: Because we are descendants of Adam.

 

[grannymh]

There is no way for me to know if “Adam is in Original Sin” is a good place to start if I don’t know where we are going. The End Game must come first or any start or first direction is unknown.

Even as I try to parse this (quote below) I’m not sure which “why” you mean to seek out.
"…We suffer from " original sin " because God deemed it just.

As a former journalist, I would go back to that sentence and find out why. In my humble opinion, in this decade, formal logic is the best approach to the why? Obviously, there are other methods just as valid. Considering that the subject matter, “original relationship between humanity and Divinity” is very broad, naturally there is a wide range of possible discussions. All discussions are appreciated. Hopefully, my discussion on in depth logic (per thread title) and theological truths will also find appreciation."
Is it, Why we suffer from " original sin "? or is it, Why God deemed it just?

Yes (both), is not a proper answer, because a logical argument needs to stay simple and not try to cover too much ground all at once.

Or are you totally satisfied with Rubarb’s conclusion: Because we are descendants of Adam.

My subject matter is the often asked question – Why do we have to suffer because one man sinned? While most “apologetic” answers are reasonable, some do not go to the depth of the question. Even when someone says “Thank you. I understand now.” – it may be a surface answer. It is possible that readers are left without the basic fundamental Catholic teachings. An important basic fact of Original Sin which needs exploring is the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. Hence, the topic of this thread.

I learned the journalism craft on the job. For any story or research for an article, my boss required me to have in my back pocket, the answers or evidence to "Who, How, What, When, Where and Why. This information was not always printed verbatim. It had to be available.
Regarding this comment from wmw, post 61.
"Is it, Why we suffer from " original sin "? or is it, Why God deemed it just?

“Yes (both), is not a proper answer, because a logical argument needs to stay simple and not try to cover too much ground all at once.”

As a researcher/writer, I did not use a logical argument per se.(At least the ones I learned and forgot in a required Logic course.) Instead, I used some of the “logic so to speak” principles to dig out information. Google was not yet invented. In addition, consistency of information was a valuable tool often used.

I sincerely meant what I said in post 58 quoted by wmw above. What needs to be added is that I am using formal logic as a tool not as the main or only method of researching the question – “Why do we have to suffer because one man sinned?” and researching the answer based on observation – The problem is that the original relationship between Adam and his Creator is not considered in depth.

As for my post 60, it is only a start of an answer to Rhubarb’s post 59. I may or may not be satisfied with Rubarb’s conclusion: Because we are descendants of Adam.

A professor in a writing class gave this instruction to his students. When you finish your draft, throw away the first page. Normally, in the Philosophy Forum, guests outnumber CAF members. I am concerned about their interests. How can I meet their needs, their questions? Maybe I need to throw out my first page of ideas. Maybe I need to start with the middle (P1) Adam is in Original Sin from Rhubarb’s post 59.

wmw,
I hope I have answered your concerns so that you continue on your chosen path. This is not an either - or thread. It is a both - and one so that there is a choice of solutions. Practically speaking, readers do learn from various positions.

 

[wmw]

My exasperations are from a point of view where I’d like to be a team member cooperating in a solution rather than just developing my own ideas marching off to the beat of my own whims and fancies. Rather, I sense we do have a gathering of contributors that has or would add in and cooperate in building up as well as add a healthy dose of critique if it knew how. Rhubarb for example has formed some very good logical arguments, but continues to reach conclusions that are of less depth than I find satisfying, but I don’t blame him because I don’t see the depth we are trying to reach either.

With the answer “Why do we have to suffer because one man sinned?” or possibly restating it as “Why has the whole of humanity in the current day become so inundated in sinfulness from the sinful act of one man?” is an interesting one, but one that goes far beyond a crucible examination of Adam & Eve with God and a serpent. Though this is the beginning; the first infection of sin in the world, but I agree with the tenor of the question. Why such a seemingly small breach of God’s law becomes a worldwide catastrophe of hate, war, murder, and every evil imaginable being done; so, universally?

A large part of the answer lays in the “leavening” effect of sin; a metaphor that treats the human race as a single lump of dough before the baking of a loaf of bread. The Bible tells that very quickly with the immediate children of Adam and Eve we have the first murder between brothers. If sin becomes so dire and done so quickly and there have been many generations of physical and psychological damage and this “leavening” of sin is spread throughout all of humanity then it seems much more understandable that the current human race is completely tainted and often overcome with the evils of sin. More so than talking in terms of an in heritance in a lack of sanctifying grace the active yeast metaphor within the dough of all people tells of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the growth of sin and where we are today.

Yet, the concept of the leavening of bread as evil or an instance of counter-leaving by the spread of the good news made in the gospel of Mathew is quite apart from the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

 

[grannymh]

My exasperations are from a point of view where I’d like to be a team member cooperating in a solution rather than just developing my own ideas marching off to the beat of my own whims and fancies. Rather, I sense we do have a gathering of contributors that has or would add in and cooperate in building up as well as add a healthy dose of critique if it knew how. Rhubarb for example has formed some very good logical arguments, but continues to reach conclusions that are of less depth than I find satisfying, but I don’t blame him because I don’t see the depth we are trying to reach either.

With the answer “Why do we have to suffer because one man sinned?” or possibly restating it as “Why has the whole of humanity in the current day become so inundated in sinfulness from the sinful act of one man?” is an interesting one, but one that goes far beyond a crucible examination of Adam & Eve with God and a serpent. Though this is the beginning; the first infection of sin in the world, but I agree with the tenor of the question. Why such a seemingly small breach of God’s law becomes a worldwide catastrophe of hate, war, murder, and every evil imaginable being done; so, universally?

A large part of the answer lays in the “leavening” effect of sin; a metaphor that treats the human race as a single lump of dough before the baking of a loaf of bread. The Bible tells that very quickly with the immediate children of Adam and Eve we have the first murder between brothers. If sin becomes so dire and done so quickly and there have been many generations of physical and psychological damage and this “leavening” of sin is spread throughout all of humanity then it seems much more understandable that the current human race is completely tainted and often overcome with the evils of sin. More so than talking in terms of an in heritance in a lack of sanctifying grace the active yeast metaphor within the dough of all people tells of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the growth of sin and where we are today.

Yet, the concept of the leavening of bread as evil or an instance of counter-leaving by the spread of the good news made in the gospel of Mathew is quite apart from the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

Basically, I propose a structure which, as far as I know, has not been previously discussed. If someone is aware of such a discussion on CAF, please give me a link to that thread.

The structure includes some basic logic along with contributions of pertinent information. I consider pertinent information as justification for a “logical” conclusion. wmw’s Post 63 in this thread and his post 999 in the thread Adam and Logic, 2nd Edition, Philosophy Forum, include pertinent information which should be used to test each logic statement I propose.

The following was proposed by Rhubarb in post 59.
(P1) Adam is in Original Sin
(P2) If Adam is in Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans
(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.
(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in Original Sin (C1, C2)
Each statement needs to be tested for reliability. In post 60, this is my evaluation.
(P1) Adam is in Original Sin
This is a far better place to start because it is an easier topic for non-believers to deal with. It is like the theatre where the audience practices a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

Most of us are a non-believer at some point in the first three chapters of Genesis. This thread is not asking readers to accept every particular point. This thread is simply, hopefully, offering a reasonable explanation for all the points.

Regarding
(C3) Humans are in Original Sin (C1, C2):doh2:
There are plenty of wolves in sheep’s clothing who either dismiss or revise parts of Original Sin in humans in order to update Divine Revelation so that it follows this or that popular theory.

 

[Rhubarb]

My exasperations are from a point of view where I’d like to be a team member cooperating in a solution rather than just developing my own ideas marching off to the beat of my own whims and fancies. Rather, I sense we do have a gathering of contributors that has or would add in and cooperate in building up as well as add a healthy dose of critique if it knew how. Rhubarb for example has formed some very good logical arguments, but continues to reach conclusions that are of less depth than I find satisfying, but I don’t blame him because I don’t see the depth we are trying to reach either.

With the answer “Why do we have to suffer because one man sinned?” or possibly restating it as “Why has the whole of humanity in the current day become so inundated in sinfulness from the sinful act of one man?” is an interesting one, but one that goes far beyond a crucible examination of Adam & Eve with God and a serpent. Though this is the beginning; the first infection of sin in the world, but I agree with the tenor of the question. Why such a seemingly small breach of God’s law becomes a worldwide catastrophe of hate, war, murder, and every evil imaginable being done; so, universally?

A large part of the answer lays in the “leavening” effect of sin; a metaphor that treats the human race as a single lump of dough before the baking of a loaf of bread. The Bible tells that very quickly with the immediate children of Adam and Eve we have the first murder between brothers. If sin becomes so dire and done so quickly and there have been many generations of physical and psychological damage and this “leavening” of sin is spread throughout all of humanity then it seems much more understandable that the current human race is completely tainted and often overcome with the evils of sin. More so than talking in terms of an in heritance in a lack of sanctifying grace the active yeast metaphor within the dough of all people tells of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the growth of sin and where we are today.

Yet, the concept of the leavening of bread as evil or an instance of counter-leaving by the spread of the good news made in the gospel of Mathew is quite apart from the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

Oh, please, don’t get me wrong. I think the arguments I’m laying out are very unsatisfying also. They’re very simple and only scratch the surface. My intention was to show how to construct premise-conclusion arguments. The phrase “Adam is in original sin” is very vague, and needs further explanation. As it was said in an earlier post - to get a complete argument that has the same depth and gravity of the concepts we’re working with would be very long and tricky. These are big ideas and scholars and theologians have spilled oceans of ink on them. I completely agree with you that a final argument would need to go much more in depth - perhaps clearly defining the relationships between concepts and the entailment of such concepts. The arguments I outlined were just models - “this is what the final argument will look like.”

My concern is that even if we take the time and hammer out a detailed, thorough argument that is sufficiently depth-y, it’s going to be open to attacks of soundness. For instance, consider the valid argument I formulated - one could say that the argument is unsound because P1, P2, and P4 are not true, (provided they can give an argument for that) or at least unsupported by fact. And every premise we add allows another point of attack . So what you might be left with is an argument that believers will buy into, but non-believers will not.

 

[wmw]

Yes, Rhubarb I’m trying to applaud your willingness to be of great value to our company. I’m sorry I’ve failed to communicate that to the extent you felt the necessity to stick up for yourself.

I think another part of the depth lacking in the re-printing of the analysis so far (besides the concept of the leavening of sin) is the gravity of the Original Sin.
Why is biting an apple, a grave sin that would justly balance a sentence of death of even Adam let alone all mankind. It’s very similar to the question I made an answer to by the leavening metaphor. So, much so that many would confuse and interchange the two aspects of the question “Why do we have to suffer because one man sinned?”.

My answer to this second question of just gravity of the offense is that Adam seemed to have been determined to know the immense gravity of an introduction to even a single minor sin. I recall the temptation of Jesus on the top of the temple or soon after that by Satin where he was tempted with a vision of all the world’s armies at Christ’s command. Is there a parallel where God gave Adam the understanding of the destitution of the world that would follow his sinning? Yet, again the perspective of the gospel is needed to explain the Jesus - Adam parallel.

I hope I’m much better at introducing new aspects to answer these “goal” questions than I am at making a formal logic statement. Now, maybe it’s time you let others go on for a while.

 

[grannymh]

Oh, please, don’t get me wrong. I think the arguments I’m laying out are very unsatisfying also. They’re very simple and only scratch the surface.

Simple and only scratching the surface is a necessary beginning. There needs to be a non-complicated type for the first foundational message …even when the main character is rather complicated and so many of us have so many different ideas about the rather simple Original Sin.

My intention was to show how to construct premise-conclusion arguments.

Please continue in this manner.

The phrase “Adam is in original sin” is very vague, and needs further explanation.

Further explanation will come. First we need to get familiar with the basic process.

My concern is that even if we take the time and hammer out a detailed, thorough argument that is sufficiently depth-y, it’s going to be open to attacks of soundness.

Truth will always be attacked since the beginning. Genesis 3: 4.

So what you might be left with is an argument that believers will buy into, but non-believers will not.

Maybe yes. Maybe no. Your job and my job is to present the truth in a truthful manner. We need to respect the intellectual freedom of readers to accept or reject. As I said in post 64. “This thread is not asking readers to accept every particular point. This thread is simply, hopefully, offering a reasonable explanation for all the points.”

I look forward to your continuing participation even when I have a difficult time understanding. Please be patient. Learning is important for all of us.

 

[grannymh]

The following bare bones example was proposed by Rhubarb in post 59.
(P1) Adam is in Original Sin
(P2) If Adam is in Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans
(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.
(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in Original Sin (C1, C2)

In my humble opinion, starting from scratch as the above, gives us the freedom to modify the statements. The key will be that we cannot disturb the validity.

Primary first suggestion
(P1) The human person Adam is in the State of Original Sin.

My reasoning is that we immediately need to identify the nature of Adam. I did not put in his status, that is, he is the first human person because the initial statements should avoid controversy if possible. That will make it easier for readers, even those who practice a “willing suspension of disbelief.”

The switch to the “State of Original Sin” is a Catholic thing. Down the line we will come to three possible states of the human person: the State of Original Sin, the State of Sanctifying Grace, and the State of Mortal Sin. Sorry, but this terminology is set in stone. In the long run, it is good terminology because it supersedes all the possible creative ways to refer to the difference between being in a true friendship relationship with our Creator and not being in a true friendship relationship with our Creator.

A general definition of the word state will suffice.
For example. Definition 1. The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
From link google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=state%2C+definition&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enUS636US636&q=state+definition&gs_l=hp…0.0l5.0.0.0.12298…Ybm6BSxNtyc&gws_rd=ssl

Thoughts so far?

One thought – It should be common sense that being in a true friendship relationship with our Maker is the better deal. Reference: first sentence in the Creed publically professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[wmw]

I’m not sure about the three states in relation to Adam.
He seems to be both in the State of Mortal Sin and the State of Original Sin.
This is true because of his unique position of having committed the Original Sin which is also a Mortal Sin.

 

[wmw]

Again, I’m not sure since if the next Statement is true then Adam is only in the State of Mortal Sin.

Humans that are born without Sanctifying Grace that have not committed Mortal Sin are in a State of Original Sin.

…but is that a statement that we may make, or is true, or not?

 

[wmw]

I’m inclined to start with the nature of man as created by God. As it was, purely Good.
Then when Adam committed Mortal Sin not only was his relationship to God changed, but the very nature of man was wounded.

This wounded nature is one that affects the spiritual abilities of man; reducing his ability to know the detriment of sin spiritually and take stock of those spiritual values balanced with the perceived benefits of a temptation. It also removes the ability to inherit sanctifying grace and have a natural spiritual birth with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at conception.

This is not a full human nature, but a wounded one; so we call it a fallen nature and the cause of this fallen nature is the original sin of Adam & Eve.

This start and rough outline would seem more explanatory of the why’s of original sin without immediately throwing the reader into having this box called Original Sin and trying to fill out that container that already has many misconceptions and error rattling around in it.

 

[simpleas]

I’m inclined to start with the nature of man as created by God. As it was, purely Good.
Then when Adam committed Mortal Sin not only was his relationship to God changed, but the very nature of man was wounded.

This wounded nature is one that affects the spiritual abilities of man; reducing his ability to know the detriment of sin spiritually and take stock of those spiritual values balanced with the perceived benefits of a temptation. It also removes the ability to inherit sanctifying grace and have a natural spiritual birth with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at conception.

This is not a full human nature, but a wounded one; so we call it a fallen nature and the cause of this fallen nature is the original sin of Adam & Eve.

This start and rough outline would seem more explanatory of the why’s of original sin without immediately throwing the reader into having this box called Original Sin and trying to fill out that container that already has many misconceptions and error rattling around in it.

What is a wounded nature though?

The original relationship between God and A&E was a grace that gave them the ability to control unholy desire. To have a fully complete human nature of goodness. When they acted on their unholy desire, through having a freewill to choose to do this, they have the grace taken from them, or lose it for themselves.

When they acted on the unholy desire, they acted on this human nature we now know. So this human nature had to have already existed for them to have acted on it, or aleast they would have been inclined to be less than holy before God, or where else did the desire to act against God come from.

 

[grannymh]

From wmw post 69
I’m not sure about the three states in relation to Adam.
He seems to be both in the State of Mortal Sin and the State of Original Sin.
This is true because of his unique position of having committed the Original Sin which is also a Mortal Sin.

From wmw post 70
Again, I’m not sure since if the next Statement is true then Adam is only in the State of Mortal Sin.

Humans that are born without Sanctifying Grace that have not committed Mortal Sin are in a State of Original Sin.

…but is that a statement that we may make, or is true, or not?

In post 68, I suggested that (P1) should be
(P1) The human person Adam is in the State of Original Sin
Then I presented my reasoning.

My own curiosity wondered why the words Original Holiness was used instead of Sanctifying Grace when they both refer to sharing in God’s life. So I can relate to the question why the words Original Sin when that sin was actually a mortal sin. wmw’s reference to Adam’s unique position is the answer. Understanding Adam’s unique position explains a lot …

At this point, I do not see a real problem in sticking with the church words Original Sin. But we need to keep in mind that the Original Sin was a mortal one, freely chosen.

I do see the value of the last line in wmw post 71. I did see human nature coming into the logical progression which is why I put “the human person” into (P1). Nonetheless, I still would like to test what happens if we face Original Sin at the beginning. Solution-- We can play around with both approaches. I think that is possible.

Would a beginning premise be (P1) Adam has a human nature.
?

Another thought is that the State of Mortal Sin of a parent cannot be inherited by a child. It is because of Adam’s unique position that the State of Original Sin is contracted by a child. Neither can the parent’s State of Sanctifying grace be inherited.

Even though the child will “inherit” the State of Original Sin, the child still receives a full human nature, soul and body. However, Original Sin affected Adam and Eve’s human nature and therefore, we say that Adam with his spouse Eve transmitted to their descendants a wounded or fallen nature. Human nature is now deprived of Original Holiness and Justice. It is in the contracted State of Original Sin.
Paragraph 405, *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *

**405 **Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

We often forget that we are summoned to spiritual battle.

 

[wmw]

What is a wounded nature though?

The original relationship between God and A&E was a grace that gave them the ability to control unholy desire. To have a fully complete human nature of goodness. When they acted on their unholy desire, through having a freewill to choose to do this, they have the grace taken from them, or lose it for themselves.

When they acted on the unholy desire, they acted on this human nature we now know. So this human nature had to have already existed for them to have acted on it, or aleast they would have been inclined to be less than holy before God, or where else did the desire to act against God come from.

You’re taking the position that “a wounded human nature” had to exist before a sin can be committed; Therefore, Adam, if in a nature free of this wound would find it impossible to sin. This is false because if it were impossible to commit sin Adam would have no freewill to commit any sin, but God specifically provided one, symbolized by the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil to give Adam that freedom. By abusing that freedom Adam wounded the nature of man.

Adam had this ability and had better clarity of its consequences because of his lack of this detriment to human nature; therefore, his sin was not a mistake or misunderstanding, but a clear defiance of God and an imminence cruelty to the welfare of all of humanity though out history.

 

[wmw]

weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Without being weakened there would be no battle. Evil would starve for being so easily ignored. The spiritual battle is thus an interior one to overcome our own weakness and inclination to evil, but we do find exterior help in a good community as well as the interior help of Christ, His body & blood, and the Holy Spirit.

At this point, I do not see a real problem in sticking with the church words Original Sin. But we need to keep in mind that the Original Sin was a mortal one, freely chosen.
…
Would a beginning premise be (P1) Adam has a human nature.
?

No, I’m not avoiding the words Original Sin, but filling out it’s meaning before its use.
OK, you need to see how this might fit into the argument, I’m open to changes for this is a first draft:

(P#) Adam was originally created holy.
(P#) Mortal Sin changes the spiritual state & nature of the sinner to something less than holy.
(P#) Adam committed the first Mortal Sin.
(C#) If Adam committed the first Mortal Sin then Adam’s spiritual state & nature became something less than holy.
(C#) if Adam’s spiritual state & nature became something less holy he is in a State of Original Sin.
(C#) Adam is in a State of Original Sin.

-](P1) Adam is in Original Sin/-]
(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans
(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.
(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in a State of Original Sin (C1, C2)

 

[wmw]

Possibly P2 & C1 needs expansion to show that the nature of Adam is what is transmitted to his descendants.

From:
(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

to:
(##) Original Sin is part of the nature of Adam.
(##) The nature of the father is transmitted to his descendants.
(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) If the State of Original Sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

 

[grannymh]

No, I’m not avoiding the words Original Sin, but filling out it’s meaning before its use.
OK, you need to see how this might fit into the argument, I’m open to changes for this is a first draft:

(P#) Adam was originally created holy.
(P#) Mortal Sin changes the spiritual state & nature of the sinner to something less than holy.
(P#) Adam committed the first Mortal Sin.
(C#) If Adam committed the first Mortal Sin then Adam’s spiritual state & nature became something less than holy.
(C#) if Adam’s spiritual state & nature became something less holy he is in a State of Original Sin.
(C#) Adam is in a State of Original Sin.

-](P1) Adam is in Original Sin/-]
(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

(P3) There are humans
(P4) If there are humans, then they are descendant of Adam.
(C2) Humans are descendants of Adam (MP P3, P4)​

(C3) Humans are in a State of Original Sin (C1, C2)

Possibly P2 & C1 needs expansion to show that the nature of Adam is what is transmitted to his descendants.

From:
(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) All of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

to:
(##) Original Sin is part of the nature of Adam.
(##) The nature of the father is transmitted to his descendants.
(P2) If Adam is in a State of Original Sin, then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin
(C1) If the State of Original Sin of Adam is transmitted to his descendants then all of Adam’s descendants are in a State of Original Sin (MP P1, P2)

Adam’s sin is a mortal sin because it fulfills the definition for Mortal Sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Glossary page 889.
MORTAL SIN: A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will (1855, 1857).

The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not change his descendants’ human nature per se. We continue to have a complete body and soul nature. What makes this difficult to comprehend is that the word nature can be used in a number of ways. For example: When he started betting on horses, his charitable nature changed into a money-grabbing low life. Betting on horses is not a sin in itself. It is usually the wrong choices one makes, when one is consumed with the horse race, that becomes sin.

That is why we need to be careful when we are talking about the State of Adam’s human nature." (CCC 404-405) Original Sin, as an action with dire results, is not a part of Adam’s soul and his decomposing anatomy. Back in post 68, I proposed this simple definition for the word “state.”

A general definition of the word state will suffice.
For example. Definition 1. The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
From link
google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=state%2C+definition&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GUEA_enUS636US636&q=state+definition&gs_l=hp…0.0l5.0.0.0.12298…Ybm6BSxNtyc&gws_r

​

Once we accept the uniqueness of Adam, we can start to understand the “state” of his human nature. I was amazed when I recently found out that “Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature.” (CCC 404) Definitely, if I ever meet Adam, I am going to slap him upside his head.

Original Sin changed the state of Adam’s nature to a nature deprived of Original Holiness and Justice; therefore, we can say that Adam transmitted to us a fallen or wounded state of human nature.
From CCC 405.
“Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.”

I am wondering if
(P#) Adam was originally created holy.
should state (yikes) the state of Adam’s original nature.

Something like Adam was originally created in the State of Original Holiness and Justice.

 

[simpleas]

You’re taking the position that “a wounded human nature” had to exist before a sin can be committed; Therefore, Adam, if in a nature free of this wound would find it impossible to sin. This is false because if it were impossible to commit sin Adam would have no freewill to commit any sin, but God specifically provided one, symbolized by the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil to give Adam that freedom. By abusing that freedom Adam wounded the nature of man.

Adam had this ability and had better clarity of its consequences because of his lack of this detriment to human nature; therefore, his sin was not a mistake or misunderstanding, but a clear defiance of God and an imminence cruelty to the welfare of all of humanity though out history.

No, that is what I am saying, that it was possible to sin. There was always the possibility to sin or stay in friendship with God.
We can’t say that Adam had a freewill and decided to be defiant, yet there was no way for him to be defiant because he was not subject to a wounded nature. (well aleast in my mind we can’t)
We also can’t explain why Adam made in a good nature, not a perfect one, free from any effects of a wounded nature, was still able to find within him a desire to be prideful.

 

[wmw]

Adam was originally created in the State of Original Holiness and Justice.

I’ve no quams with that change.

Nature- yes that is an indistinct term, I’m not sure that undefined State of Original Sin get accross the idea that his humanity has been altered.

The difference between Adam and subsequent humans is that Mortal Sin does not change his descendants’ human nature per se.

I think you’re presenting facts not in evidence. Why would further sin not have further effects on human nature’s woundedness? The initial fall may indeed have been the greatest, but I don’t see where you can say more sinfulness over the generations doesn’t cause increased woundedness. Our definition of Original Sin means sinful enough to not have Sactifying Grace, but it doesn’t say anything about further degrees below that threshold.

We can’t say that Adam had a freewill and decided to be defiant, yet there was no way for him to be defiant because he was not subject to a wounded nature. (well aleast in my mind we can’t)

How or Why does a State of Santifying Grace bar a way for Adam to be defiant? I can agree that he had to have overcome his natural graces and it would be something “unnatural” for someone without a wounded nature, but not to the level of “can’t”.