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

[fhansen]

This sounds strange to me, why would God gift the first humans, knowing they would sin and send the rest of humanity on what seems like a very very long journey to perfection. Are we the second class citizens? I know you probably didn’t mean it like I have read it.

There are a number of threads discussing Original sin on CAF recently, it is a hot topic!

Because all humanity-including Adam & Eve-were sent on a journey of perfection. Until they appreciated their gifts-and the Giver-they would not be yet perfected.

 

[wmw]

Yes, I think your right, that sinner is introducing a new term where none is needed and replacing it with “human” would distract less.

and where does Mortal Sin come from the same human that Perform’s it. Then we stick with a more general noun, predicate, object, preposition of affect construction.

The statement becomes:

(P#) A human performing a Mortal Sin changes the state of the same human to a State of Mortal Sin.

I still feel “state” is not as meaningful as “nature”. I still imaging this to be better as:

(P#) A human performing a Mortal Sin changes the nature of the same human to a nature of Mortal Sin.

but I will defer if Grannymh truly thinks State is more understood by the masses. How about third term like “endowment”?

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Folks,

I was actually a little bored this morning, so I decided to spend some time reading this thread.

Here is what I have gleaned:

“Man was created with original holiness”
“Man has acquired original sin - man has lost original holiness”

I think the most basic question lies with the premises of holiness or non-holiness.

Think, for a moment, of an unborn child, 8 weeks old. She has her perfect little feet, but she is so very tiny.

Is she unholy?

 

[fhansen]

Hi Folks,

I was actually a little bored this morning, so I decided to spend some time reading this thread.

Here is what I have gleaned:

“Man was created with original holiness”
“Man has acquired original sin - man has lost original holiness”

I think the most basic question lies with the premises of holiness or non-holiness.

Think, for a moment, of an unborn child, 8 weeks old. She has her perfect little feet, but she is so very tiny.

Is she unholy?

She’s unwhole to the extent that she’ll grow up without the knowledge of God that Adam & Eve began with. This knowledge/relationship is vital to man’s integrity, and is posed within us always as a choice throughout our lives, and especially as we come to obtain knowledge about God through the teachings of the Church. Her choice will be to acknowledge and heed an often quiet innate voice, to follow it in making right rather than wrong choices, right choices that she won’t always make.

Additionally pain and suffering-and ultimately death, already at work in us as our common fate-will be her lot, along with the joys and happiness that this life offers. We were made for more, for a true wholeness that we don’t always acknowledge and seek -and she’ll have to struggle to achieve it, with God’s help.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Folks,

I was actually a little bored this morning, so I decided to spend some time reading this thread.

Here is what I have gleaned:

“Man was created with original holiness”
“Man has acquired original sin - man has lost original holiness”

I think the most basic question lies with the premises of holiness or non-holiness.

Think, for a moment, of an unborn child, 8 weeks old. She has her perfect little feet, but she is so very tiny.

Is she unholy?

Glad to see you.

A bit of clarification.

This thread does not have an unborn child, 8 weeks old, [sic] as the original first human being on planet earth.

 

[OneSheep]

Glad to see you.

A bit of clarification.

This thread does not have an unborn child, 8 weeks old, [sic] as the original first human being on planet earth.

Hi Granny

okay. However, you stated that humanity had lost sanctifying grace, and you also stated that loss of sanctifying grace was loss of original holiness. I am looking for experiential, perhaps, truth of such loss of holiness. Is there a characteristic of the unborn child that is unholy?

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

She’s unwhole to the extent that she’ll grow up without the knowledge of God that Adam & Eve began with. This knowledge/relationship is vital to man’s integrity, and is posed within us always as a choice throughout our lives, and especially as we come to obtain knowledge about God through the teachings of the Church. Her choice will be to acknowledge and heed an often quiet innate voice, to follow it in making right rather than wrong choices, right choices that she won’t always make.

Additionally pain and suffering-and ultimately death, already at work in us as our common fate-will be her lot, along with the joys and happiness that this life offers. We were made for more, for a true wholeness that we don’t always acknowledge and seek -and she’ll have to struggle to achieve it, with God’s help.

Hi fhansen

So, the holiness is achieved, then. She has all the info within her, but she has not acknowledged it yet. There is nothing negative about the child, she is beautiful and pure, but in order to be complete (whole) she will eventually have to acknowledge and heed that inner voice.

So, in terms of “integrity”, I think that you are using it in terms of “wholeness”, and again this does not imply negative value, only a lack of awareness.

In terms of “state”, then, you would not be making reference to anything concerning the status of her existence. She is beautiful and completely acceptable, unconditionally loved by God. Her “state” concerning holiness is akin to a “state” of feeling cold or warm, neither of which diminish her value to Abba. Holiness she achieves benefits her, it does nothing to change the way that God sees her.

Does that reflect what you are saying?

thanks

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny

okay. However, you stated that humanity had lost sanctifying grace, and you also stated that loss of sanctifying grace was loss of original holiness. I am looking for experiential, perhaps, truth of such loss of holiness. Is there a characteristic of the unborn child that is unholy?

Thanks

Would you kindly give me the post number where I said the above? There seems to be a bit of confusion… I certainly would want to correct it. Thank you so much.

May I gently repeat that this thread is about the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. The Catholic teaching is that the original relationship consisted of God as Creator and Adam who is the original first human creature on planet earth.

Since you are interested in an unborn child and unholy, the Family Life Forum or the Spirituality Forum might be a better place to ask your question. Or perhaps the Apologetics Forum would be a better fit if you are interested in Catholic teachings.

However, you are certainly welcome to enjoy this thread. You certainly can be a part of this thread. That way you can learn some very interesting information about Catholic teachings regarding a literal Adam and a literal Original Sin.

As a start, the real living Adam began life in the State of Original Holiness and Justice. Today we refer to ourselves, true descendants of Adam, as being in the State of Sanctifying Grace. Both the State of Original Holiness and the State of Sanctifying Grace refer to the fact that we are sharing in God’s life. Awesome! If you like to read and learn, *CCC *1996- 2005 is solid.

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen

So, the holiness is achieved, then. She has all the info within her, but she has not acknowledged it yet. There is nothing negative about the child, she is beautiful and pure, but in order to be complete (whole) she will eventually have to acknowledge and heed that inner voice.

So, in terms of “integrity”, I think that you are using it in terms of “wholeness”, and again this does not imply negative value, only a lack of awareness.

In terms of “state”, then, you would not be making reference to anything concerning the status of her existence. She is beautiful and completely acceptable, unconditionally loved by God. Her “state” concerning holiness is akin to a “state” of feeling cold or warm, neither of which diminish her value to Abba. Holiness she achieves benefits her, it does nothing to change the way that God sees her.

Does that reflect what you are saying?

thanks

God loves her absolutely. She’s perfect as to the nature she’s been given but prone to not remaining perfectly aligned to it in all ways. God wants her whole, perfect. And her own happiness ultimately depends on it.

 

[wmw]

“unholy” - no, I don’t see that word in our premises or conclusions and would advise against it’s use.

No comments on “endowment” rather than “state”?

And there is a lot of capitalization of them for instance: " State of Holiness and Justice or State of Sin". Is this for emphasis or to group the words into one noun?

I really do like “human” rather than “sinner” and the standard English sentence construction of:

(P#) A human performing a Mortal Sin changes the state of the same human to a State of Mortal Sin.

 

[simpleas]

The word state …

do you feel or know you are in a state of grace or mortal sin, one could feel guilty about something but not necessarily be in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin means deliberately separating oneself from God, in Adam and Eve 's case they deliberately separated themselves because they knew what the outcome would be. The descendants of this first couple do not have a free will or any choice, to remain in grace or mortal sin because they are born with the original sin. So where is the logic in that? To me it’s more logical to say we are born in relationship with God, baptised to bond us even closer to God and as we develop we then can make our choices. Saying we are separate in our relationship to God before we even wake up takes our freewill away I think.

 

[grannymh]

The word state …

do you feel or know you are in a state of grace or mortal sin, one could feel guilty about something but not necessarily be in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin means deliberately separating oneself from God, in Adam and Eve 's case they deliberately separated themselves because they knew what the outcome would be. The descendants of this first couple do not have a free will or any choice, to remain in grace or mortal sin because they are born with the original sin. So where is the logic in that? To me it’s more logical to say we are born in relationship with God, baptised to bond us even closer to God and as we develop we then can make our choices. Saying we are separate in our relationship to God before we even wake up takes our freewill away I think.

A bit of clarification for those gentle readers who may be interested in the Catholic Church.

In fairness to the poster,
apparently the logic of the sentence I put in bold is being question. I hope that the poster will continue to question the validity of that bold sentence.

In fairness to the Catholic Church, I need to point out that this sentence –
“The descendants of this first couple do not have a free will or any choice, to remain in grace or mortal sin because they are born with the original sin.”
is a bold attack on Catholic teachings dating back centuries to some, not necessarily all, of the first Protestant reformers. Basically, this very popular attack against Catholic doctrines taught in CCC 1730-1732 and especially in CCC 405 is a direct attack against human nature, stripping mankind of its rightful opportunity to seek joy eternal.

 

[fhansen]

The word state …

do you feel or know you are in a state of grace or mortal sin, one could feel guilty about something but not necessarily be in a state of mortal sin. Mortal sin means deliberately separating oneself from God, in Adam and Eve 's case they deliberately separated themselves because they knew what the outcome would be. The descendants of this first couple do not have a free will or any choice, to remain in grace or mortal sin because they are born with the original sin. So where is the logic in that? To me it’s more logical to say we are born in relationship with God, baptised to bond us even closer to God and as we develop we then can make our choices. Saying we are separate in our relationship to God before we even wake up takes our freewill away I think.

In Catholic teaching man was wounded and weakened by the Fall, his will compromised, perhaps, but not eliminated. He was now poised for a struggle: whether or not to embrace the rebellion/opposition to God, the sin he’d be experiencing daily in his new world, or whether or not to seek and find something better, the good. He would be* lacking, *particularly in the direct knowledge of God that his ancestors first possessed, at least, the knowledge they scorned; humanity’s bond with it’s Creator had been deeply compromised, which meant, as well, that man’s bond or relationship with a part of his own being had been ruptured. We’re made for God, and His image within us still exists, even if obscured, and even if we’re not sure at times if we even want it to express itself. It’s a struggle, involving real choices, a good struggle, with good results in us and for us as we participate in it. God’s help, His revelation and grace, are intended to enlighten, guide and strengthen us on this journey, without force. We’re better off, in some ways, than A&E in Eden, because now we can see more clearly- viscerally as we experience it- the wrong-headedness of man being out of sorts with his Creator and His will.

 

[OneSheep]

God loves her absolutely. She’s perfect as to the nature she’s been given but prone to not remaining perfectly aligned to it in all ways. God wants her whole, perfect. And her own happiness ultimately depends on it.

I like the way you present that, fhansen. Her own happiness ultimately depends on it. This is definitely along the lines of the incarnation not being a matter or purpose of changing God’s mind about us, but instead changing our own minds about God.

She will grow up encountering people who hurt her, and will come to resent some aspect of herself, and the means to holiness will be (ultimately) found within, as you stated. In addition, she will come to resent occurrences in her life, for which the means to holiness will also be found within.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

The word state …

do you feel or know you are in a state of grace or mortal sin, one could feel guilty about something but not necessarily be in a state of mortal sin.

Actually, when we feel guilty about something, we are in a “state” are we not? If we think of the definition of sin as “alienation”, then when we feel guilty we are feeling alienated from something good and whole within or without. So, in that respect, regardless of whether or not something is “on the books” as a “sin”, when we experience such alienation then it is an opportunity to go to confession. Sure, the priest may look at you funny for confessing, for example, that you had forgotten to feed one of your dogs or give them the best that you could, but if one is overcome with guilt about such an act, then alienation is felt, right?

Now, if such a “state” is concerning God’s attitude about us, that He is feeling negatively towards us, this is a projected illusion.

Mortal sin means deliberately separating oneself from God, in Adam and Eve 's case they deliberately separated themselves because they knew what the outcome would be.

They did? Are you serious? That is the Adam-and-Eve-were-omniscient version of the creation story. And actually, now that I think about the story, if A&E were omniscient, they would have know that the serpent was lying (or hiding a truth), so the version holds no water.

The descendants of this first couple do not have a free will or any choice, to remain in grace or mortal sin because they are born with the original sin. So where is the logic in that? To me it’s more logical to say we are born in relationship with God, baptised to bond us even closer to God and as we develop we then can make our choices. Saying we are separate in our relationship to God before we even wake up takes our freewill away I think.

Baptism is the sign that God has already forgiven us. God has forgiven us “before always”. Remember, Jesus did not come to change God’s feeling, mind, or attitude about us, Jesus came to change man’s feeling, mind, and attitude about God.

And our choices? When we make bad choices, we do not know what we are doing. We experience alienation, but the alienation take place not between God and us, but instead the alienation occurs between the self and the self’s love of God. And even when we make a choice that alienates us from our love of God, we do so without knowing what we are doing. Doesn’t this make more sense than the idea that we are born separate?

So, yes, depending on some definitions, your proposal seems much more logical.

 

[grannymh]

Baptism is the sign that God has already forgiven us. God has forgiven us “before always”. Remember, Jesus did not come to change God’s feeling, mind, or attitude about us, Jesus came to change man’s feeling, mind, and attitude about God.

In the Catholic Church, “baptism” is a Sacrament.

This means that yes, the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism is a sign of God acting in loving interaction with His human creatures. Because Adam is the very first original human, the Catholic Church recognizes that when he deliberately shattered his* original relationship between humanity and Divinity*, the result was the loss of his original State of Original Holiness and Justice. Consequently, his descendants contracted his State of Original Sin which means that human nature, at birth, is deprived of Adam’s original State of Original Holiness and Justice.
Paragraphs 355-421 of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, are an excellent source of Catholic information on this topic. Within those paragraphs, along with CCC 1730-1732, is some basic information regarding the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.
The Catholic Sacrament of Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, removes the human’s contracted State of Original Sin and divinely replaces it with the State of Sanctifying Grace.
The CCC Glossary, page 898 defines Sanctifying Grace as

“The grace which heals our human nature wounded by sin by giving us a share in the divine life of the Trinity. It is a habitual, supernatural gift which continues the work of sanctifying us—of making us “perfect,” holy, and Christlike (1999).”

Remember,
that all this is possible because Jesus Christ, as True God and True Man, restored, repaired humanity’s broken relationship with God. He did this with His perfect obedience so that St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15: 54-55 could write
“Death is swallowed up in victory.
Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death is your sting?”
Links to the “best reading ever” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[OneSheep]

In the Catholic Church, “baptism” is a Sacrament.

This means that yes, the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism is a sign of God acting in loving interaction with His human creatures. Because Adam is the very first original human, the Catholic Church recognizes that when he deliberately shattered his* original relationship between humanity and Divinity*,…

Hi Granny,

When you are saying “deliberate” you are meaning that he made a bad choice without knowing what he was doing. Right?

the result was the loss of his original State of Original Holiness and Justice. Consequently, his descendants contracted his State of Original Sin which means that human nature, at birth, is deprived of Adam’s original State of Original Holiness and Justice.

This is an assertion, but you seem to want to avoid answering my earlier question:

“what is unholy about the unborn child?”

Please describe what the unborn child is “deprived” of.

Thanks!

 

[davidv]

Hi Granny,

When you are saying “deliberate” you are meaning that he made a bad choice without knowing what he was doing. Right?

This is an assertion, but you seem to want to avoid answering my earlier question:

No, it is not an assertion. It is a reasonable explanation of Church teaching.

“what is unholy about the unborn child?”

Please describe what the unborn child is “deprived” of.

Thanks!

An unborn child is deprived of Sanctifying Grace because of Original Sin.

 

[grannymh]

And our choices? When we make bad choices, we do not know what we are doing.

In the Catholic Church, there is the Sacrament of Confession, Reconciliation along with the Sacrament of Baptism. (post 154 above)

In post 153, there is this rather interesting unique statement. (read the whole paragraph)

“And our choices? When we make bad choices, we do not know
what we are doing.”

This definitely makes me wonder why the Catholic Church has Seven Sacraments.

Everyone knows that the real first human Adam has a rational spiritual soul per Genesis 1: 26-27. As descendants of the two sole real human parent founders of our species, we too have a rational spiritual soul directly created by God per Genesis 1: 26-27. Therefore, we, along with Adam, do have the capability to think about our actions and do make intellective choices regarding our actions. Obviously, there are exceptions.

 

[OneSheep]

No, it is not an assertion. It is a reasonable explanation of Church teaching.

Hi David!

If that is the case, is an explanation with its proof from interpretations of Church teachings, which are assertions. There are also other interpretations of the Church teachings that lead to other assertions. To me, it is personal experience of the divine that truly provides some weight to the assertions. We don’t believe what we don’t experience.

An unborn child is deprived of Sanctifying Grace because of Original Sin.

In real terms, what does it mean to be deprived of sanctifying grace? How is this child “deprived” in comparison to you and I? I can think of many experiential things, but what is your answer? Is there something about her “state” that is different from us?

Thanks