S
- Status
W
wmw
Guest
On the issue of the marking of Cain. I think there is latitude to the Church’s teaching on this to the point that one can include even very non-literal conclusions.
For instance at least into the 1960’s there was an expression that a wanted person or one in-debt to the mob was “a marked man”. This expression likely came from the story of Cain, but we understand that physically there is no discoloration upon any such criminal. It was clear to all that this means that someone is after this person and will take his revenge.
Coming back to apply this to Cain it would be easy for God to communicate a similar understanding to a small tight knit little human community/family that God would alone deal with Cain and vengeance shall be for Him to apply just as the OT later will say in Moses’ time.
For instance at least into the 1960’s there was an expression that a wanted person or one in-debt to the mob was “a marked man”. This expression likely came from the story of Cain, but we understand that physically there is no discoloration upon any such criminal. It was clear to all that this means that someone is after this person and will take his revenge.
Coming back to apply this to Cain it would be easy for God to communicate a similar understanding to a small tight knit little human community/family that God would alone deal with Cain and vengeance shall be for Him to apply just as the OT later will say in Moses’ time.
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents:
People were then closer to God; it no longer works. Although vengeance belongs to God, sons of Adam are killing each other even as we read this.
Just to introduce something else related to “brothers and sisters”.
The first real family appears to be Noah’s.
Antediluvian relationships between brothers and sisters appear to be no different than what we now understand when we speak of our all being brothers and sisters in Christ.
Stated bluntly, the taboo against incest would not have existed as there was a different emotional/spiritual bond between people. Before the flood, there would have been no offense against the family, its members, and God, because it did not exist.
. . . and/or perhaps the family was “evolving” and this was part of the reason for the flood.
G
grannymh
Guest
Historically, the first real family is that of Adam and Eve who were blessed by God as the founders of humankind.
There are actually two issues regarding the concept of incest. The first is sexual relations between parent and child which is usually rape. In any case, the family structure is damaged. Obviously, this type of incest would be forbidden from the start.
The second issue of incest is based on degrees of consanguinity which is determined both civilly and within the Church. Through experience over centuries (refer to Queen Victoria and the royal blood disease) the degrees of consanguinity which most likely could lead to inheritable diseases can be estimated. There are always exceptions since human DNA has approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes.
In ancient times, since there were no published medical Journals,
heredity diseases would have been observable in some way. We really do not know how accurate any observations were. Also, brother marrying sister would alter the family structure as to the responsibility of a family member. I am thinking that in ancient times, marriage was a community celebration because new life would begin in a community oriented setting. Brother marrying sister would be an inward event and depending on age and independence, it could alter the responsibility structure of the family.These ideas about ancient times are simply personal thoughts. What is essential is that the unacceptable results of close consanguinity would not have been present in Adam and Eve since they did not have human ancestors who had developed physical disorders. The same not-enough-time-to-develop-factor would also be present in the second generation (children of Adam and Eve) and the third generation.
Nonetheless, considering the length of female fertility and multiple births, the third generation would lead to overlapping generations which would quickly alter the practical lines of consanguinity. Mathematically speaking, it would not take long for there to be plenty opportunities to marry someone that was not a close relative according to consanguinity degrees.
In the short period, where there was only the original family, we find the obvious exception regarding brother marrying sister. God’s directive “Be fertile and multiply” takes precedence.
Historically, since human nature is an unique unification of both the material world of the decomposing anatomy and the spiritual world of God’s love eternally, God was totally in charge.
D
DaveE
Guest
Why then differentiate the Sons of God from the daughters of man?
R
Robin_des_Bois
Guest
How can we discuss Adam and Logic without dwelling into The Theory That Cannot Be Discussed? How could we know we aren’t overstepping our boundaries?
W
wmw
Guest
Though the Book of Enoch tells of fallen Angels having giant semi-human creatures born of human women. This book was not included in the canon of scripture and for good reason. The more commonly held Catholic view today is explained in this EWTN expert answer:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=455303&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
Even this seems using a shoe horn to fit facts into the biblical text, but it may be the facts that are behind the story. Again the Church is open to allow belief or not in many things like this.
I think the main purpose of these verses are to make a quick transition into the story of Noah’s ark that just quickly convinces the reader that the corruption of the world had become so great that the Flood was appropriate. Hence, this is a case of trying to get the human mind to grasp the judgement of God. That is always going to amount to taking shortcuts and over simplifications; so, I take these “nephilim” and “Sons of God” passages more for their emotional content. Sort of saying this is a conveyance of how God felt about the corruption that was upon the earth more than that these pieces of the story have to connect to actual heavenly beings or a linage of peoples or even types of people.
G
grannymh
Guest
I would like point out that coming from the Catholic position, there is a difference between the first three chapters of Genesis and the chapters about Cain and Noah. Specific basic, foundational Catholic doctrines flow from the first three chapters of Genesis and not from the following chapters – even though there are Catholic teachings about good and evil and consequences, relationship with God, etc. in the following chapters.
The basic, foundational Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and original sin are unique to the first three Genesis chapters because these doctrines can be nowhere else than the beginning of human history. Neither Cain nor Noah started human history.
W
wmw
Guest
Then take option 1 at the end of the link. That is likely why it is more widely accepted by Catholic heavy weights like Scott Han than my opinion.
D
DaveE
Guest
I’m coming from a Catholic position as well. I don’t understand your point. Who would ever suggest that Cain or Noah started human history?
G
grannymh
Guest
My point, my apology for less than clarity, is that the difference between Adam and Eve and Cain and Noah is that Adam and Eve’s position at the start of human history is why we credit basic Catholic doctrines to the first three chapters of Genesis. Cain and Noah cannot claim that their position in human history is the foundation for Catholic doctrines of human origin, human nature, and original sin. This is why there are few, if any, official interpretations such as properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrines in the lives of Cain and Noah. However, there are many valuable lessons we can learn from Cain and Noah.
Before the ban on evolution discussion, there were posters who wanted to demote Adam and Eve. Thus, they would connect this couple in thought with Noah, implying that all of them should be treated in the same manner, that is, excluding Catholic doctrines because Noah’s flood could have been a large puddle. Sorry, about that exaggeration.
The reality is that some people are uncomfortable with a real original sin. It is a lot easier to deal with the sins in the times of Cain and Noah. Maybe these doubting people want to get lost in the crowd. Maybe they fear the awesome responsibility of Adam.
To answer the question “How can we discuss Adam and Logic without dwelling into The Theory That Cannot Be Discussed?” in post 183. I am thinking that we cannot even get to the beginning of logic because original sin is so misunderstood.
D
DaveE
Guest
The Church doesn’t cleave to a doctrine of original sin. It references it but it has no point in doctrine. Why should it? It’s easily understood as it relates to Adam, God’s creation. The concept of “original sin” does not answer the larger question, “what did sin come from?” Only God could ever define that. The Church is wise and would not compete. What I see is that the birth of sin in the Garden would not have been a birth at all. Sin already existed. Otherwise, why would God have warned Adam not to eat? In order for sin to be definite, it must openly contravene the Word, open rebellion. Adam and Eve knew they were in sin, hence the fig leaves.My point, my apology for less than clarity, is that the difference between Adam and Eve and Cain and Noah is that Adam and Eve’s position at the start of human history is why we credit basic Catholic doctrines to the first three chapters of Genesis. Cain and Noah cannot claim that their position in human history is the foundation for Catholic doctrines of human origin, human nature, and original sin. This is why there are few, if any, official interpretations such as properly defined and duly declared Catholic doctrines in the lives of Cain and Noah. However, there are many valuable lessons we can learn from Cain and Noah.
Before the ban on evolution discussion, there were posters who wanted to demote Adam and Eve. Thus, they would connect this couple in thought with Noah, implying that all of them should be treated in the same manner, that is, excluding Catholic doctrines because Noah’s flood could have been a large puddle. Sorry, about that exaggeration.
The reality is that some people are uncomfortable with a real original sin. It is a lot easier to deal with the sins in the times of Cain and Noah. Maybe these doubting people want to get lost in the crowd. Maybe they fear the awesome responsibility of Adam.
To answer the question “How can we discuss Adam and Logic without dwelling into The Theory That Cannot Be Discussed?” in post 183. I am thinking that we cannot even get to the beginning of logic because original sin is so misunderstood.
The continuance of the story through Cain, Noah and pretty much everyone else is the brilliant evolution of this theme. Sin is the poison in our machine. It can be overcome through Our Lord’s grace. Here’s the Lord giving us grace by teaching us how through the entire New Testament. We have truth so we can spread this grace. The Church takes direction from all of this. This is the nut.
The Catholic Church’s position on these matters is humble and brilliant. It seeks the truth. It does not rush into petty doctrines. That is why I joined up.
G
grannymh
Guest
You have my deepest sympathy.
Apparently, you have received teachings which are not part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
I will be restating correct Catholic teachings in a logical progression based on the fact that God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.
D
DaveE
Guest
God Bless. I hope you find what you are looking for.
G
grannymh
Guest
Claim from post 190.
“The Church doesn’t cleave to a doctrine of original sin.”
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition has a number of interesting explanations for logic. One definition I like is “a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty.” Another speaks of “principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.” In plain words, logic is a way of arriving at the truth. Historically, there are two methods: 1. The Deductive Method which begins with axioms that are simple truths and 2. The Inductive Method which is now known as the Scientific Method.
This thread is based on the Deductive Method of logical reasoning. This is indicated in the OP (post 1) statement: “Because the Catholic Church holds that a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions (simplified description) does in fact exist–the presupposition for this thread is God as Creator exists.” In post 191, the added presupposition is “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.” Philosophically speaking, I am starting with two axioms or truths.
Actually, I am waiting for Hicetnunc to return from holiday so that he can correct my granny-philosophical language.
Suggestion for those who wish to debate my initial two axioms. That kind of discussion belongs in a separate thread in either the Philosophy Forum or the Apologetics Forum. Another suggestion is the theatre principle of “a willing suspension of disbelief.” Simply put, this means that we forget about implausibility or the nonsense of what is happening on the stage so that we can sit back and enjoy the show. For the purpose of this thread, suspension of disbelief only refers to the first or initial two axioms. We still have to use our active brains to analyze subsequent statements.
In the Deductive Method, when a statement follows logically from the initial axiom, it, too, must be true. This is the place where all those fascinating logical faults come into play.
For the purpose of this thread, it appears to me that we need to ask questions about the initial axiom, “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.” For example. How does God interact with us?
The claim from post 190, “The Church doesn’t cleave to a doctrine of original sin.” refers to a real, existing institution, the Catholic Church. It is reasonable to say that God interacts with us through the Catholic Church. Please note that because God exists as Creator (initial axiom), He is powerful enough to interact with us outside of the Catholic Church. From here, we can deduce the possibility of the Catholic doctrine that God calls each individual person to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It is possible to use the terminology that we humans are in the image of God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-357)
This is the perfect place to yell “stop the presses” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_press
If we are going to find real truth, we also must use the Inductive Method of reasoning in order to examine what we find in our own natural environment starting with what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror. The Inductive (scientific) Method depends on accurate observations of the material/physical world. The first principle of the Scientific Method is - Observe Without Prejudice
The both-and approach (deductive and inductive) is vital because our own human nature unites *both *the spiritual and the material worlds. (CCC 355)
“The Church doesn’t cleave to a doctrine of original sin.”
To begin at the beginning.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition has a number of interesting explanations for logic. One definition I like is “a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty.” Another speaks of “principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.” In plain words, logic is a way of arriving at the truth. Historically, there are two methods: 1. The Deductive Method which begins with axioms that are simple truths and 2. The Inductive Method which is now known as the Scientific Method.
This thread is based on the Deductive Method of logical reasoning. This is indicated in the OP (post 1) statement: “Because the Catholic Church holds that a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions (simplified description) does in fact exist–the presupposition for this thread is God as Creator exists.” In post 191, the added presupposition is “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.” Philosophically speaking, I am starting with two axioms or truths.
Actually, I am waiting for Hicetnunc to return from holiday so that he can correct my granny-philosophical language.
Suggestion for those who wish to debate my initial two axioms. That kind of discussion belongs in a separate thread in either the Philosophy Forum or the Apologetics Forum. Another suggestion is the theatre principle of “a willing suspension of disbelief.” Simply put, this means that we forget about implausibility or the nonsense of what is happening on the stage so that we can sit back and enjoy the show. For the purpose of this thread, suspension of disbelief only refers to the first or initial two axioms. We still have to use our active brains to analyze subsequent statements.
In the Deductive Method, when a statement follows logically from the initial axiom, it, too, must be true. This is the place where all those fascinating logical faults come into play.
For the purpose of this thread, it appears to me that we need to ask questions about the initial axiom, “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.” For example. How does God interact with us?
The claim from post 190, “The Church doesn’t cleave to a doctrine of original sin.” refers to a real, existing institution, the Catholic Church. It is reasonable to say that God interacts with us through the Catholic Church. Please note that because God exists as Creator (initial axiom), He is powerful enough to interact with us outside of the Catholic Church. From here, we can deduce the possibility of the Catholic doctrine that God calls each individual person to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It is possible to use the terminology that we humans are in the image of God. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355-357)
This is the perfect place to yell “stop the presses” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_press
If we are going to find real truth, we also must use the Inductive Method of reasoning in order to examine what we find in our own natural environment starting with what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror. The Inductive (scientific) Method depends on accurate observations of the material/physical world. The first principle of the Scientific Method is - Observe Without Prejudice
The both-and approach (deductive and inductive) is vital because our own human nature unites *both *the spiritual and the material worlds. (CCC 355)
S
simpleas
Guest
Hi, I hope it’s ok to ask a few question’s about adam and eve on this forum that doesn’t stray from your actual discussion.
Thanks for your help
- can we be sure of the story of eve eating from the tree of knowledge and then passing it to adam to eat also? That makes eve the sinner first, so why do we regard adam as the worst of the two?
2.Could there be another sinful reason other than the forbidden fruit story, as there is mention of nephilim people/angels? - After adam and eve had passed from this life and God saw all the evil in men’s hearts he regretted having made man, but found favor with Noah and his family, so the ark story is told. Why then didn’t sin die with adam and eve and a new fresh human beginning made in Noah (as Noah would still be a sinner).
Thanks for your help
G
grannymh
Guest
It is my understanding that part of the logical approach is to examine other possibilities. Your three points do fit in with this thread’s discussion.Hi, I hope it’s ok to ask a few question’s about adam and eve on this forum that doesn’t stray from your actual discussion.
Please correct me on anything as i’m searching/trying to learn more on the creation story, and i know most answer’s will only come from God, but I’m interested in poster’s idea’s/teachings
- can we be sure of the story of eve eating from the tree of knowledge and then passing it to adam to eat also? That makes eve the sinner first, so why do we regard adam as the worst of the two?
2.Could there be another sinful reason other than the forbidden fruit story, as there is mention of nephilim people/angels?- After adam and eve had passed from this life and God saw all the evil in men’s hearts he regretted having made man, but found favor with Noah and his family, so the ark story is told. Why then didn’t sin die with adam and eve and a new fresh human beginning made in Noah (as Noah would still be a sinner).
Thanks for your help
I so want to answer that Adam is the worst, because I am a secret feminist.
Seriously, it would be good to discuss the points from Adam’s position. However, I may not be able to get back to you right away.
A
Aloysium
Guest
- There is no worst imho. He blamed her but that is what happens as sin spreads - one fails to take responsibility and blames the other. Adam was the first human; Eve was created from the totality of who he was and they became the parents of mankind. It was his and our choice to sin.
- Genesis is like a collage to me. You can make up a story to fill in the blanks; but that is all that is. It is interesting to speculate why things were left out and why they were included. Nephilim? I personally have no idea. Things at the beginnings of human life on earth were a little different than they are now.
- Other people can explain this better than I. Their choice which happened in time and space, like that of the angels which had immediate consequences, affected their nature and hence that of all mankind who followed. That human nature which is passed on through generations is of a fallen humanity. But we are however, redeemed through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and thus have the possibility of experiencing the Beatific Vision.
W
wmw
Guest
Grannymh, there is a huge leap of logic between “God is” plus “God interacts” to accepting the Bible and the CCC as the deposit of God’s whole and Holy communication to man. If you’d please include those as axioms too then we are set for a lot of discussion of how to take all of this data from God, but just starting from your two axioms is going to take more than 10,000 posts before we can start saying the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church into all truth.
- Status