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

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,

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!

Forgive me for my delay in answering. You need to understand that I have never met an unborn child in person. I did carry six unborn children until their birth which is the first time I could kiss them. There was nothing unholy about them.

You asked me to describe what the unborn child is “deprived” of. Certainly, this dear tiny human child is deeply loved by God. CCC 1260, first sentence, assures us that the “Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”

Granted that this sweet unborn child, by the way, is it a boy or a girl, is in the State of Original Sin. And yes, that contracted state exists because Adam’s gosh-awful sin shattered humanity’s original relationship with Divinity. That is why babies are baptized. Please refer back to post 154, if you are interested in the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism.

As I think about this unborn human being child, I am thinking that all human beings are holy because they are in the image of God. Genesis 1: 26-27. Obviously, some look holier than others and some, not all, others go against their own holiness by freely, with full knowledge, choosing to commit a mortal sin. But that is another issue. Adam’s gruesome sin is mortal.

 

[fhansen]

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.

She will also likely deal with her own waywardness in one form or another, born from pride, which can often end up causing pain and harm to others. It’s amazing how early in life arrogance and meaness can manifest in quite average people.

 

[grannymh]

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!

Sometimes, my brain is a tad slow. Here is additional information to my post 159.

When you speak about the unborn child and “unholy”, could it be that you are thinking that the unborn child is guilty of Original Sin? That kind of thinking is far from the truth.

No human, unborn child or adult, inherits Adam’s “personal fault.” (CCC 405) That pesky idea that human nature was totally corrupted pops up occasionally. Please do not be fooled by it.

The unborn child is peerless in our material world simply because all humans can have a personal relationship with God, the Divine Creator. Do you realize that God continues to offer each human a supernatural relationship with Himself? That is one of the basic reasons for the Incarnation and for the Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.

Please remember that the basic fundamental reason for the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to assume, not absorb, our human nature is that He can take the place of Adam’s humanity which is materially limited. Being Divine, Jesus can repair, restore, reconcile a relationship originally made by God. Being Divine, Jesus constantly offers all of us the grace to respond to Divine love. We are the only creature on earth who is called by God “to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.” (CCC 356)

 

[simpleas]

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.

I did not know asking deep and difficult questions regarding our church teaching’s would be classed as attacking our church.

What I meant by the above sentence was that if we are born in a particular state, we have no choice in the matter. I did not mean to imply that we should remain in that state if that is what you may have thought, I was pointing out what seems obvious to me and our church teaches we are born in the state of original sin.

Freewill only comes into play later in life.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

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.

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.

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.

We could be in many “states” when we feel a particular way about something. I ask if a person feels in a state of grace or mortal sin, guilt that we feel may not mean we are turning away from God.

A&E had knowledge about death, spiritual and physical I think, I don’t think they were told they would be tempted by satan, so they had no reason to disbelieve him. They could not be held responsible for the fall from Grace if they were unaware of what would happen. So no original sin.

The choices thing…You say when we make bad choices we don’t know what we are doing, so when we make good choices, do we know what we are doing then?
If we can know that a good choice is…well…good, then we would know that a bad choice is…bad.
It may not be that simple, I know, but we can some times, say or do something, that we know is a bad choice, but still go ahead and do it. Maybe through anger or jealousy. But this is in our human nature, as wounded. A&E had no wounded nature, but still went ahead and choose badly.

 

[grannymh]

I did not know asking deep and difficult questions regarding our church teaching’s would be classed as attacking our church.

If you would kindly go back to post 150, you will see that I did not say “attacking our church.” In addition, the statement was not a deep and difficult question-- it was clear that the descendants of this first couple do not have a free will. Just because being conceived did not include the opportunity for choosing one’s own state of soul at conception time – that does not mean that free will was not present at conception. Free will is part of the spiritual soul created by God.

A bit of history followed. “do not have a free will” is an attack on human’s free will. This opposition to the presence of free will goes back centuries. This bit of history is found in *CCC *406 which explains that early Protestant reformers taught that “original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom.” Refer to CCC 405 for the Catholic teaching.

What I meant by the above sentence was that if we are born in a particular state, we have no choice in the matter.

Free will is not part of any particular state. Free will belongs to one’s rational spiritual soul.

Granted that human conception does not include a choice–State of Original Sin or a State of no Original Sin. Just because there is not a choice, we cannot conclude that this baby descendent does not have free will.

I did not mean to imply that we should remain in that state if that is what you may have thought, I was pointing out what seems obvious to me and our church teaches we are born in the state of original sin.

Free will is basically our ability to choose

an action or no action. Free will is not dependent on our state in life.

Freewill only comes into play later in life.

What do you mean?

Freewill is part of our soul which is immediately created by God. (*CCC *366) Even if it is not used until later, free will is present. We use our free will when we freely choose to commit a mortal sin. We use our free will when we freely choose to go to the Sacrament of Confession, Reconciliation in sorrow for that sin.

This is just a suggestion. Try not to mix together two such different things as the "state" of one’s soul with the “abilitities” or “functions”.

Please do not confuse the “state” in this sentence from post 153. “Actually, when we feel guilty about something, we are in a “state” are we not?”

with the Catholic teachings on the “state” of our immortal sou.

 

[simpleas]

If you would kindly go back to post 150, you will see that I did not say “attacking our church.” In addition, the statement was not a deep and difficult question-- it was clear that the descendants of this first couple do not have a free will. Just because being conceived did not include the opportunity for choosing one’s own state of soul at conception time – that does not mean that free will was not present at conception. Free will is part of the spiritual soul created by God.

A bit of history followed. “do not have a free will” is an attack on human’s free will. This opposition to the presence of free will goes back centuries. This bit of history is found in *CCC *406 which explains that early Protestant reformers taught that “original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom.” Refer to CCC 405 for the Catholic teaching.

Free will is not part of any particular state. Free will belongs to one’s rational spiritual soul.

Granted that human conception does not include a choice–State of Original Sin or a State of no Original Sin. Just because there is not a choice, we cannot conclude that this baby descendent does not have free will.

What do you mean?

Freewill is part of our soul which is immediately created by God. (*CCC *366) Even if it is not used until later, free will is present. We use our free will when we freely choose to commit a mortal sin. We use our free will when we freely choose to go to the Sacrament of Confession, Reconciliation in sorrow for that sin.

This is just a suggestion. Try not to mix together two such different things as the "state" of one’s soul with the “abilitities” or “functions”.

Please do not confuse the “state” in this sentence from post 153. “Actually, when we feel guilty about something, we are in a “state” are we not?”

with the Catholic teachings on the “state” of our immortal sou.

When you said this :

*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.*

I took it to mean you were implying that my sentence was attacking Catholic teaching.

• Freewill is part of our soul which is immediately created by God*

This I accept, what I don’t understand is if we have a freewill from conception, is our will ordered toward God or our own will, without full knowledge of anything?

 

[grannymh]

We could be in many “states” when we feel a particular way about something. I ask if a person feels in a state of grace or mortal sin, guilt that we feel may not mean we are turning away from God.

In response to the opening sentence. “We could be in many “states” when we feel a particular way about something.”
Please, please recognize that “states” of feelings are extremely different in every way from the State of our Immortal Spiritual Soul.

A&E had knowledge about death, spiritual and physical I think, I don’t think they were told they would be tempted by satan, so they had no reason to disbelieve him. They could not be held responsible for the fall from Grace if they were unaware of what would happen. So no original sin.

When one reads the first three chapters of Genesis, it is obvious that even without Satan, Adam and Eve could have eaten the forbidden fruit. It is also obvious that both Adam and Eve knew the exact consequence if they ate the fruit.
From *CCC *Glossary, Mortal Sin, 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).
As Genesis, chapter 3 describes Satan, he is most cunning in suggesting “doubt” of God. Satan cleverly asks a normal question about God. Eve answers with full knowledge of the evil of disobedience. In chapter 2, Adam is given full knowledge of the evil of disobedience. As *CCC *397 teaches: Adam let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.

Adam’s yielding to Satan’s temptation has no wiggle room. It is a freely chosen act with full knowledge of the consequence.

 

[fhansen]

In response to the opening sentence. “We could be in many “states” when we feel a particular way about something.”
Please, please recognize that “states” of feelings are extremely different in every way from the State of our Immortal Spiritual Soul.

When one reads the first three chapters of Genesis, it is obvious that even without Satan, Adam and Eve could have eaten the forbidden fruit. It is also obvious that both Adam and Eve knew the exact consequence if they ate the fruit.
From *CCC *Glossary, Mortal Sin, 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).
As Genesis, chapter 3 describes Satan, he is most cunning in suggesting “doubt” of God. Satan cleverly asks a normal question about God. Eve answers with full knowledge of the evil of disobedience. In chapter 2, Adam is given full knowledge of the evil of disobedience. As *CCC *397 teaches: Adam let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.

Adam’s yielding to Satan’s temptation has no wiggle room. It is a freely chosen act with full knowledge of the consequence.

Adam knew he would die (because he’d been told) but I can’t help but wonder if Adam knew death, both spiritual and physical, the way he’d come to know it personally as a consequence of the fall. One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact? What might change this situation, to cause them to want to obey, since their wanting- their willing- is the heart of the matter here? The related question that comes up is that, culpable as they were with the knowledge they were given, and considering God’s foreknowledge of their actions, what made them redeemable at all-why shouldn’t God just abandon them?

Obviously God knew they were still capable of change, of metanoia, a change of mind and heart. We don’t believe as Catholics in total depravity and the salvation, universal or otherwise, of some completely helpless-or "will-less-unthinking brutes without regard to their wills. God must’ve been at work in man since the very beginning to draw him into a true righteousness, into a willful obedience.

 

[grannymh]

Adam knew he would die (because he’d been told) but I can’t help but wonder if Adam knew death, both spiritual and physical, the way he’d come to know it personally as a consequence of the fall. One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact? What might change this situation, to cause them to want to obey, since their wanting- their willing- is the heart of the matter here? The related question that comes up is that, culpable as they were with the knowledge they were given, and considering God’s foreknowledge of their actions, what made them redeemable at all-why shouldn’t God just abandon them?

Obviously God knew they were still capable of change, of metanoia, a change of mind and heart. We don’t believe as Catholics in total depravity and the salvation, universal or otherwise, of some completely helpless-or "will-less-unthinking brutes without regard to their wills. God must’ve been at work in man since the very beginning to draw him into a true righteousness, into a willful obedience.

This is exactly why I keep wanting people to actually study *the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. *

Over and over again, I ask people to refer to* CCC *1730-1732. For example, CCC 1732 contains the explanation (Beatific Vision) for this comment:
“One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact?”

CCC 1730 answers why God did not abandon the progenitors of humankind.

And yes, I am discouraged.

 

[grannymh]

This is exactly why I keep wanting people to actually study *the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. *

Over and over again, I ask people to refer to* CCC *1730-1732. For example, CCC 1732 contains the explanation (Beatific Vision) for this comment:
“One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact?”
CCC 1730 answers why God did not abandon the progenitors of humankind.

Thus, it is reasonable for people to find answers to many general popular questions and then, God bless them, present their findings for discussion.

And yes, I am very discouraged.

 

[grannymh]

Last thought to post 168

Therefore, it is reasonable for people to find answers to popular questions and, God bless them, present various answers for thread’s discussion. That way, we all can delve deeper into wonderful Catholicism.

 

[simpleas]

In response to the opening sentence. “We could be in many “states” when we feel a particular way about something.”
Please, please recognize that “states” of feelings are extremely different in every way from the State of our Immortal Spiritual Soul.

When one reads the first three chapters of Genesis, it is obvious that even without Satan, Adam and Eve could have eaten the forbidden fruit. It is also obvious that both Adam and Eve knew the exact consequence if they ate the fruit.
From *CCC *Glossary, Mortal Sin, 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).
As Genesis, chapter 3 describes Satan, he is most cunning in suggesting “doubt” of God. Satan cleverly asks a normal question about God. Eve answers with full knowledge of the evil of disobedience. In chapter 2, Adam is given full knowledge of the evil of disobedience. As *CCC *397 teaches: Adam let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.

Adam’s yielding to Satan’s temptation has no wiggle room. It is a freely chosen act with full knowledge of the consequence.

Yes, the state of our soul means the condition of it.

Continuing from post # 165 I was asking about freewill, which I think is important to understand.
How can we have a freewill, but be in the condition of original sin. If freewill is the ability to act on one’s own…freely.?

So we can believe we don’t have any influence from satan because A&E could have disobeyed without any temptation? Satan was needed in the story, why else would they have wanted to question God, they were in a good relationship with him, until doubt (satan) implied God was lying.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding granny’s post 166. Those who read the first three chapters of Genesis will recognize that the forbidden tree itself is a temptation. (Source of information. Genesis 3: 6; CCC 396)

 

[fhansen]

Regarding granny’s post 166. Those who read the first three chapters of Genesis will recognize that the forbidden tree itself is a temptation. (Source of information. Genesis 3: 6; CCC 396)

Yes, which just means that disobedience would always be a temptation.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, which just means that disobedience would always be a temptation.

So man needed no outside source to influence his thoughts that God was lying to him, he believed this himself.

Of course disobedience is a temptation, but in the genesis story, satan is the voice that tempts, so maybe it was man’s own voice within and satan does not exist.

 

[grannymh]

So man needed no outside source to influence his thoughts that God was lying to him, he believed this himself.

Of course disobedience is a temptation, but in the genesis story, satan is the voice that tempts, so maybe it was man’s own voice within and satan does not exist.

That is certainly an interesting “maybe”. Thank you for bringing it up. I had forgotten about long ago discussions.

In the past, in my geographical area, some Catholic teachers were denying the actual existence of Satan. Sure there was evil in the world, but a real being named Satan …
I have no doubt that there are still people who laugh at the idea of Satan as they laugh about the talking snake in some garden fantasy.

For the record. The Catholic Church teaches the reality of Satan. Information source: CCC paragraphs 391, 395, 2851

 

[OneSheep]

Forgive me for my delay in answering. You need to understand that I have never met an unborn child in person. I did carry six unborn children until their birth which is the first time I could kiss them. There was nothing unholy about them.

Six!? Wow! You are blessed. Yes, this is my experience too, but not the “six” part. Yes, there was nothing unholy about them!

Granted that this sweet unborn child, by the way, is it a boy or a girl, is in the State of Original Sin. And yes, that contracted state exists because Adam’s gosh-awful sin shattered humanity’s original relationship with Divinity.

So, the unborn child, though holy, is deprived of a relationship with God, until baptism? So, even the adult going through RCIA has no relationship with God, until baptism? Or, is it more like the baptism makes the relationship more fully realized, or instead, baptism is the sign that God is already in relationship with everyone, signified in the pouring of the water?

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

We could be in many “states” when we feel a particular way about something. I ask if a person feels in a state of grace or mortal sin, guilt that we feel may not mean we are turning away from God.

A&E had knowledge about death, spiritual and physical I think, I don’t think they were told they would be tempted by satan, so they had no reason to disbelieve him. They could not be held responsible for the fall from Grace if they were unaware of what would happen. So no original sin.

Well, we really don’t know how much Adam knew about death, but that is not the point of the story, so we aren’t given those details. We don’t know if they knew that the serpent would deceive either. We certainly don’t know if they knew that their defiance would change relationships for generations, if that is the case.

So, even if the story says nothing about original sin, it is a pretty interesting attempt to explain why humans have the perception of good and evil. What it does not explain is why the human is so much better off with the innate perceptions.

The choices thing…You say when we make bad choices we don’t know what we are doing, so when we make good choices, do we know what we are doing then?
If we can know that a good choice is…well…good, then we would know that a bad choice is…bad.

Yeah, well, that is the other side of the coin. When we make good choices, we really don’t know what we are doing then either. There is just so much we do not know. We think that we know a lot.

The main thing pertinent here is that when we make choices that lead to increased suffering, we are either not realizing what we are doing, or the net effect of the act is intended to decrease suffering. Is that confusing?

It may not be that simple, I know, but we can some times, say or do something, that we know is a bad choice, but still go ahead and do it. Maybe through anger or jealousy. But this is in our human nature, as wounded. A&E had no wounded nature, but still went ahead and choose badly.

We can relate to Adam and Eve because they did not know what they were doing, nor do we. If “wounded nature” is our lack of awareness, such woundedness is had by everyone.

People make bad choices, even knowing that the choices are bad, but are still intending some good, right? It is that “net effect” thing. People are blind to the value of the other, and they make choices that they do not think are bad, but indeed, people suffer because of them.

Because of these points, there is some logic in saying that the relationship Adam had with God was essentially no different than our own. We all are born holy, we all are capable of blindness, and are born in a “state” of lacking awareness. So, our “wounded” nature may simply be that we lack awareness or are capable of blindness…

Adam and Eve wanted, and the wanting creates a blindness. Some look at that capacity for blindness as “wounded” others see it as a gift of our nature, a gift from God.

:twocents:

 

[fhansen]

This is exactly why I keep wanting people to actually study the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. *
Over and over again, I ask people to refer to CCC *1730-1732. For example, CCC 1732 contains the explanation (Beatific Vision) for this comment:
“One basic point of the story is that Adam & Eve were obviously still “temptable”, capable of being enticed away from obedience to God’s will. What would change this fact?”

CCC 1730 answers why God did not abandon the progenitors of humankind.
And yes, I am discouraged.

Me too-study without comprehension is disappointing as well. 1730-1732 can be cited all day long but those paragraphs don’t answer the question in post #167: “What would change this fact?” What, IOW, causes man to use his freedom to bind himself definitively to God, rather than turn away from God as Adam did? And 1730 tells us that man has free will but fails to answer why God doesn’t abandon man. Other paragraphs, 410-412, address this question more directly, but in any case the reason I bring it up is because of your insistence that “Adam’s yielding to Satan’s temptation has no wiggle room. It is a freely chosen act with full knowledge of the consequence.” I don’t think Adam had full knowledge, in terms of absolute knowledge, of the consequences to the extent that he did after actually experiencing them.

When seen in this light Adam’s exile from Eden isn’t looked upon as strictly punishment but also as part of Adams* formation*, of his perfecting, of his ultimately coming to bind himself definitively to God IOW. Then it makes sense that God’s plan for the *saving *of man involves man’s perfecting, entailing the Fall, man’s exile into a world where the Master’s no longer immediately evident and both good and evil are personally experienced, and revelation and grace which seek to bring man back into relationship with God, without violating his freedom as described in paragraphs 1730-1732.

If Adam was still “malleable” in Eden, not yet having bound himself to his ultimate good, then a piece of the puzzle was still missing, and therefore Adam’s culpability is reduced to one degree or another, and this helps explain why God didn’t abandon him. And this also might help to explain the reason behind much of simpleas’s line of questioning since it mainly revolves around Adam’s culpability. Related to this is the fact that theologians have stressed that angels were held to a higher level of accountability for their actions when many rebelled because of their greater intelligence and closeness to God.