Adam & Logic

[grannymh]

Sometime back, there was a discussion and recognition that humans are capable of inventing a variety of relationships with the supernatural. The general word for these different relationships is religion. What the fact of various religions tells us is that it is ourselves who have the capability to go beyond our natural environment.
The opening post of this thread proposed:
“In my humble opinion, it is logical, given the human nature that you and I possess, that Adam existed as explained by the Catholic Church.”
Let us revisit that statement in the light of the fact that we humans have an innate capability of sensing and thus knowing the existence of the supernatural.

The Catholic Church is a visible organization which recognizes the supernatural and has determined a relationship with the supernatural known as the Catholic religion. However, the Catholic Church is not satisfied with a multitude of different ways to express its religion. It claims a single way of knowing the supernatural which is based on Jesus Christ. As True God and True Man, Jesus re-establishes the harmonious connection between humanity and divinity. Jesus “re-establishes” because it is obvious that there is a loss of harmony in our world. Since the world is a created existence, the essential harmony has to be with its creatures – the pinnacle of which is created humans – and the Creator.

Essentially, Catholicism seeks the oneness of truth about the supernatural because humans seek the oneness of truth. That is part of our human nature. Oneness is a way of healing the brokenness of human relationships.

How did the search for oneness come about? I think that it came about because deep within ourselves, there is the knowledge that the human race began with oneness. My dictionary describes oneness as unity, integrity, wholeness,
and, of course, harmony. Given the fact that humans can destroy the harmony of oneness, why are we upset about this?
I think that our reaction is because deep within ourselves, there is a longing for the original oneness that began at the beginning of our history.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I will try to answer your valid questions by explaining some basic principles of Catholicism.

In general, Catholicism does not declare doctrines in natural science. Therefore, the scientific age of the earth is not a Catholic doctrine. However, Catholics and everybody else, including high ranking clergy, are free as individuals to study the age of the earth and present their conclusions. There are some really great Catholics who work in the area of the sciences.

In general, Catholicism does declare doctrines in faith and morals based on Divine Revelation. The fact is that there are people who do not believe certain Catholic doctrines and therefore present their own versions. The fact is that no matter how many people, including clergy, who present their own versions about Divine Revelation, Catholic doctrines remain as declared under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In general, there is a clear division between natural science in the material environment and Divine Revelation in the spiritual world of God the Creator. Please note that God the Creator is not limited to the spiritual world because our material world is His creation regardless of how and when the material world was formed.

So far, so good???

What began in the 20th century and is now prevalent in the 21st century is that certain science research interpretations directly oppose certain Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin. Because we are in the image of God in that we have a spiritual soul, we are called by God to share in His life through knowledge and love, here on earth (sanctifying grace) and, following bodily death, we can share in God’s life in eternal joy (Beatific Vision). When the interpretations of any theory deny the Catholic doctrines on human origin and human nature, there is trouble.

When it comes to true knowledge about human origin and human nature – Divine Revelation trumps.

As for Original Sin, Catholicism has doctrines explaining Original Sin because this sin directly involves humanity’s relationship with divinity.

This is a philosophy forum and not an apologetics forum as such. However, philosophy is often used as a part of apologetics. Adam and logic is a philosophical approach (deductive method of reasoning) to our first parent. Because of this, as OP I choose to focus on humans.

Adam exists regardless of old the earth is. This is why I can skip discussion about the age of the earth. This thread goes straight to God’s interactions with humans, starting with Adam as taught by the Catholic Church.
From post 217. “Because we are focusing on humans, we can skip the age of the earth, etc., and go straight to God’s interaction with humans (a happy intervention), starting with our honored first parents.”
This will sound really silly. But the we is me… including posters.

The topic of Adam is so important that I am making a choice to keep the thread away from distracting discussions.

Distracting discussions?

Granny, anything that is not dogma would be a distracting discussion.
Let’s get distracted by science.

Let’s ask if the situation was possible or probable.

 

[grannymh]

Distracting discussions?

Granny, anything that is not dogma would be a distracting discussion.
Let’s get distracted by science.

Let’s ask if the situation was possible or probable.

I cannot reply because of this sticky. It is my intention to abide by its ban.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)
Jo Benedict

I will do the best I can to arrive at a real Adam using a philosophical/logical approach which has Divine Revelation as the base. The Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature, Original Sin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ are all real, that is, they are all possible. I believe that Divine Revelation trumps…which is why I trust a philosophical/logical approach. I cannot predict if I can handle this approach. But I sure will try and maybe someone, far smarter than I am, will improve my humble attempt. I do know that I love God.

I chose these two axioms or premises as a start according to the Deductive Method of reasoning. Obviously, there will be some Inductive reasoning when we look at the human being and discover why we are the pinnacle of creation.

The two formal axioms presented in this thread are.

1. “God as Creator exists.”
2. “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.”

I accept the fact that people have the right to disagree with the statements I have chosen. That will not change my love for them. Friends will always be friends.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I cannot reply because of this sticky. It is my intention to abide by its ban.

Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)
Jo Benedict

I will do the best I can to arrive at a real Adam using a philosophical/logical approach which has Divine Revelation as the base. The Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature, Original Sin, and the divinity of Jesus Christ are all real, that is, they are all possible. I believe that Divine Revelation trumps…which is why I trust a philosophical/logical approach. I cannot predict if I can handle this approach. But I sure will try and maybe someone, far smarter than I am, will improve my humble attempt. I do know that I love God.

I chose these two axioms or premises as a start according to the Deductive Method of reasoning. Obviously, there will be some Inductive reasoning when we look at the human being and discover why we are the pinnacle of creation.

The two formal axioms presented in this thread are.

1. “God as Creator exists.”
2. “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.”

I accept the fact that people have the right to disagree with the statements I have chosen. That will not change my love for them. Friends will always be friends.

And death will always be death.
Yet there is truth that friends will always be friends
I tried. I really tried.
Best to you always my friend

 

[grannymh]

Axiom 2 has been worked on to provide a simpler, more direct statement.

1. God interacts with His creation, including the human person.
2. God as Creator exists.
   remains the same.

 

[simpleas]

So am I in the midst of trying to piece it together.
Let me know what you think about posts 230 & 233. For the time being, I am concentrating on Adam, because it is he who commits the Original Sin.

I worked through post 233 from one meaning, i.e., from Adam’s and our view. Now, I see that “good and evil” can have two meanings. Thank you for the Genesis citation below.

One of the things often overlooked is the difference in status between the infinite God and the finite human. Adam looked at what was good and what was evil from his personal position in relationship to his God. On the other hand, the word omniscient, as the all-knowing Creator, comes to mind when I think of God’s knowledge of good and evil. What other knowledge is there besides all that is good and all that is evil?

Notice that Scripture does not say that Adam becomes a god; but rather Adam is like a God. Still, it is not the same as being in the image of God. Being in the image of God refers beautifully to man’s nature; while God’s infinite knowledge of good and evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits of Adam’s human nature.

Adam attempted to be a god by preferring himself over God and against the requirements of his creaturely status. This preference, resulting in disobedience, is the Original Sin. Being the creature, Adam could maintain his relationship with God only by living in free submission to God. Deciding to disobey this requirement of obedience in order to raise himself up to the level of God, according to Satan’s offer of all knowledge, is how Adam’s Original Sin shattered humanity’s relationship with divinity.

Your questions will help find me find more details.

Try thinking of eating the fruit as subsequent or secondary to the actual sin of scorning the Creator. Try thinking of Original Sin as a two-part action. First Adam lets his trust in his Creator die in his heart. He yields to Satan’s false promise that a creature can be a god. He scorns God’s love for him and instead wants to live as some kind of god, apart from the real God. To put that choice into action, Adam deliberately disobeys God’s command and eats the one fruit which was forbidden.

At this point, could you expand on the concept of pure goodness and pure evil? To me, pure goodness would be poin1 in post 233. Pure evil would be the eternal separation from God, point 2 in post 233.

As I recall, I learned about Adam first and then Original Sin by itself. It seems to me, from reading threads, that the tree itself has to be understood first and then human nature. Original Sin appears to be omitted or replaced by a nasty trick on humans.

When you say try thinking of the original sin as a two part action, Adam lets his trust in his creator die…could that mean something happen between Adam and God as adam became more intelligent, thus giving satan his chance to pounce! But then I have no idea what that something could be, and then I remember it was eve that was tempted first, and she offered the fruit to adam.

The pure goodness/evil, pretty much like the post’s in 233, but how they knew what death actually meant, seeing as they were the only human’s and they at the time would never die, but death was going to be the consequence of their actions, were they fully aware of that. I assume they were, possibly animals died as they have no soul, but they still wanted to be god like, so took a chance…

 

[simpleas]

Post 230 is simply shifting the playing field in order to change the approach to this valid conundrum – “I wonder why God didn’t teach them that, before, so they could be on their guard against the evil one.” – to another, and maybe easier, approach.

O.K. ?

What I did was to shift from “God teaching Adam” to what it was He should have taught him. Then I shifted from Adam to readers of this thread.

We can agree that the subject matter that Adam needed to learn is the important knowledge of knowing good from evil. Let us put aside Eve’s act of gobbling up organic fruit and look for the places where God interacted with Adam (axiom 2).

Because it is important for us to use our own minds instead of Google, I shifted away from Adam and asked readers:

1. What can be easily learned from Genesis 2: 15?
   Genesis 2: 15. “The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.”
2. What can be easily learned from Genesis 2: 17?
   Genesis 2:17. “… From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
   Considering that Adam was probably barefoot, maybe we should take off our shoes. Whatever will help us take the place of Adam in Genesis.

First, as readers, we can examine these two familiar situations.

1. When we are at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receive Our Lord in Holy Communion, isn’t there a feeling of love, perhaps security in the presence of God? We know we can die and go to heaven, with maybe a pit stop in purgatory.
2. When we are about to commit a grave sin, does something nag us about the danger to our soul, a danger that could separate us from God? Or maybe we know from experience that sinning is tearing us apart, apart from our natural goodness and apart from our Creator.

What is it that we learned? 1. is good. 2. is evil. What did Adam learn in his two encounters with God. 1. is good. 2. is evil.

One bit of added information to the above. Catholicism sees the “garden” as a sign of Adam’s familiarity with God. Adam is in a peaceful relationship with God. Genesis 3: 8 “When they heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, …”

Please, what are your questions so far. We have only touched the surface.

Right i’m actually bare foot while reading this!!

1. yes i think you can have a feeling of peace and security while in the presents of God at mass, but always a fear… not sure about purgatory…
2. Would depend maybe on the grave sin, don’t some people regard some sin’s as kinda ok nowadays, perhaps because they have fallen away.

But yes so Adam knew good from evil, because we don’t regard adam as a numb person as such, but going back to the knowledge, what his I.Q was (if he could have one) like a child know’s good from bad, although they don’t always know or be aware of what the consequence of their action’s will be. (this should be with my last post really, as i part answered the question there too!)

If God made our first parents in his own image, yet God was a spirit what could our first parents possible look like? How they interacted with God is another interesting notion to me, we think God spoke to them, but maybe it was telepathically, because they were holy and divine, not say they couldn’t speak, but differently from how we would assume they could interact with the creator

 

[grannymh]

When you say try thinking of the original sin as a two part action, Adam lets his trust in his creator die…could that mean something happen between Adam and God as Adam became more intelligent, thus giving satan his chance to pounce! But then I have no idea what that something could be, and then I remember it was eve that was tempted first, and she offered the fruit to Adam.

When it comes to big sins, according to my favorite TV detective series, there is usually some thinking and planning before a murder is committed. Sometimes it is built-up anger which leads to murder. Sins of any kind require knowledge and choice.

What is important about Adam’s situation is that Adam being the creature was dependent on his Creator. Catholicism puts it this way in paragraph 396 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
**“396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.”
Being in the image of God is seen as our spiritual soul which has the capabilities of intellect and will. One of the benefits of being the first man is that Adam had mastery of self. Adam was unimpaired because he was basically free from inclinations to sin.
What happened between God and Adam was a harmonious relationship. As Adam enjoyed this personal relationship, being rational, he would be capable of learning more about God as time went on. At the beginning, He certainly recognized the difference between his finite nature and the infinite nature of God. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy of God, Adam would not have to suffer or die. (Genesis 2: 15-17; CCC 376 and 396)

Satan pounced as soon as Adam and Eve came near the forbidden tree. (Genesis 3: 1-6) While Eve ate the fruit first, it was Adam that Satan was after. The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (CCC 404 plus teachings of St. Paul). Eve was just an appetizer. All of us were the main course.

Reading Genesis 3: 4-5, we can hear that cunning voice sowing seeds of doubt about God’s relationship with Adam. As his spouse, Eve shared Adam’s relationship with God; however, we have to keep in mind that Adam is the original human. (Which logically makes him and his spouse sole founders of humankind.) We can imagine Adam wondering about God and His directions about maintaining life–don’t eat that particular appealing organic fruit.

So when I suggest that Original Sin can be viewed as two parts, I am thinking first about Adam listening to that snake in the grass and processing this strange information. It is here that Adam lets his trust in God die in his heart. He freely chooses to accept the words of Satan. The second part is that Adam disobeys God. Adam chooses his own desire to be like a god, offered by Satan, and deliberately abuses his freedom. He disobeys. (CCC 397-400)

To be continued.

 

[grannymh]

In general,
most of us make the mistake of connecting Adam’s source of human knowledge to a tree. That is illogical in any century.

 

[grannymh]

From post 242

Right i’m actually bare foot while reading this!!

1. yes i think you can have a feeling of peace and security while in the presents of God at mass, but always a fear… not sure about purgatory…
2. Would depend maybe on the grave sin, don’t some people regard some sin’s as kinda ok nowadays, perhaps because they have fallen away.

But yes so Adam knew good from evil, because we don’t regard adam as a numb person as such, but going back to the knowledge, what his I.Q was (if he could have one) like a child know’s good from bad, although they don’t always know or be aware of what the consequence of their action’s will be. (this should be with my last post really, as i part answered the question there too!)

If God made our first parents in his own image, yet God was a spirit what could our first parents possible look like? How they interacted with God is another interesting notion to me, we think God spoke to them, but maybe it was telepathically, because they were holy and divine, not say they couldn’t speak, but differently from how we would assume they could interact with the creator

All but one general item was addressed in my post 243. If those items were not addressed sufficiently, please point out where I need to expand the reply.

I put “to be continued” at the end of my answer in post 243 because I needed to deal with this part in post 242.
“but going back to the knowledge, what his I.Q was (if he could have one) like a child know’s good from bad, although they don’t always know or be aware of what the consequence of their action’s will be.”
Post 242 is an expansion on these comments from post 232.
"So what i’m failing to fully understand, is how they knew Good from evil prior to eating the fruit. Yes i understand that they somehow knew right from wrong, being a creature, but they couldn’t have known what pure goodness and pure evil was until they made that mistake.

To me i read it as, they only aquire the ability to know good from evil after they have been tempted. and ate the fruit."
I have seen the above more times than there are stars in the sky.

Being in the Philosophy Forum has helped me look at Adam from a different perspective. Yesterday, I posted why there is so much difficulty with good and evil.
“In general,
most of us make the mistake of connecting Adam’s source of human knowledge to a tree. That is illogical in any century. ”
I may not be saying this correctly, but my understanding is that philosophy examines the whole person or the whole thing as to its nature. Centuries ago, philosophy reasoned that there is a difference in nature between God and human. In fact, when one actually studies the first three chapters of Genesis, it is easy to discern that its writer knew the difference in nature between God and human.

My philosophical question is – If the Genesis writer knew the difference between God and human, would he also know the kind of knowledge God could impart to a human and the kind of knowledge a tree, with a fancy name, could impart to a human?

Reading Genesis 2: 15-17 from a philosophical perspective, we learn that the nature of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad is organically the same as other garden trees. It is Satan who tempts Eve to misinterpret the nature of that special tree by implying that God is a liar.

Getting stuck on a tree is beginning to sound like the birth of a straw man to me as in distracting a person from the real issue which is the source of Adam’s human knowledge, which, by the way, is brilliantly demonstrated in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[simpleas]

Can I just ask who do we think actually wrote genesis? How could they know/guess what God’s words were to Adam, eve and serpent satan? Apart from the story being handed down from noah and his decendants as the obvious answer.

In one of the posts you asked something like what other knowledge is there apart from good and evil, would supernatural power be a source of knowledge too?

 

[grannymh]

Notice

Axiom 2. for this thread has been simplified.
The two axioms are:

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts with humans.

Thank you for your cooperation with this change.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Can I just ask who do we think actually wrote genesis?

Of course you may ask “Who do we think actually wrote Genesis?” It would be interesting to know the answer – I have no clue. However, the more important question is “Who interprets the first three chapters of Genesis?”

Not sure about the latest count of Christian religions, maybe around 30,000. Add to that people who read some part of Scripture because they believe it is important for living. Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. With all these possibilities for interpretations, I recommend the Catholic Church as an excellent true interpreter of Scripture with one essential clarification. The Catholic Church does not interpret every chapter and every verse as an automatic Catholic doctrine.

How could they know/guess what God’s words were to Adam, eve and serpent satan? Apart from the story being handed down from noah and his decendants as the obvious answer.

Interesting question when one focuses on authorship. Given the traumatic outcome of Adam’s original sin, God’s words could have been be engraved on human memory. In any case, the dramatic meaning of what happened at the dawn of human history was preserved. In essence, this means that Divine Revelation needed to be passed on from Adam and Eve to their children and to their children’s children and to … Obviously, just like today, some children do not listen to their parents. Some children do. When it came time for putting quill to parchment, discernment of God’s divine revelation was put in place. The recognition of God’s divine revelation, that is, God’s interaction with humans, is what is important. God’s divine revelation is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This is what we draw on when we search out the ways that God has interacted with us.

In one of the posts you asked something like what other knowledge is there apart from good and evil, would supernatural power be a source of knowledge too?

Complete knowledge stretches from good to evil with plenty of mixtures in between. As to sources of knowledge about individual elements of this complete knowledge, this number would be in the thousands at least. A friend talked about the intelligibility of the cosmos. We protest against the evils of poverty because we know and respect human dignity. Not only do we drink in the endless beauty of the night sky, airplane pilots have the knowledge of how to travel above the earth from place to place on the earth.

The created world, including us, is not capable of being equal to God the Creator. God as being super-natural is the only being who has complete knowledge. We are unique creatures in that we can reason to knowledge which is very good, but not as complete as our Creator’s. With our knowledge and technology, we can discover how bacteria know how to multiply. When it comes to knowing the how’s and why’s of our own human nature, we look to God’s divine revelation initially found in the first three chapters of Genesis and correctly interpreted by the Catholic Church.

To answer the question “In one of the posts you asked something like what other knowledge is there apart from good and evil, would supernatural power be a source of knowledge too?”

First, “knowledge” that can be considered apart from our material world is that of God infinitely Himself. Being infinite, God creates the finite, our world and ourselves. Genesis 1:1

In the first three chapters of Genesis, we find the beginnings of our human knowledge about God and about ourselves. This is because God as Creator interacted with humans from day one. This interaction is correctly interpreted by the Catholic Church with the guidance and wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit.

 

[simpleas]

Of course you may ask “Who do we think actually wrote Genesis?” It would be interesting to know the answer – I have no clue. However, the more important question is “Who interprets the first three chapters of Genesis?”

Not sure about the latest count of Christian religions, maybe around 30,000. Add to that people who read some part of Scripture because they believe it is important for living. Bible means Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. With all these possibilities for interpretations, I recommend the Catholic Church as an excellent true interpreter of Scripture with one essential clarification. The Catholic Church does not interpret every chapter and every verse as an automatic Catholic doctrine.

Interesting question when one focuses on authorship. Given the traumatic outcome of Adam’s original sin, God’s words could have been be engraved on human memory. In any case, the dramatic meaning of what happened at the dawn of human history was preserved. In essence, this means that Divine Revelation needed to be passed on from Adam and Eve to their children and to their children’s children and to … Obviously, just like today, some children do not listen to their parents. Some children do. When it came time for putting quill to parchment, discernment of God’s divine revelation was put in place. The recognition of God’s divine revelation, that is, God’s interaction with humans, is what is important. God’s divine revelation is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This is what we draw on when we search out the ways that God has interacted with us.

Complete knowledge stretches from good to evil with plenty of mixtures in between. As to sources of knowledge about individual elements of this complete knowledge, this number would be in the thousands at least. A friend talked about the intelligibility of the cosmos. We protest against the evils of poverty because we know and respect human dignity. Not only do we drink in the endless beauty of the night sky, airplane pilots have the knowledge of how to travel above the earth from place to place on the earth.

The created world, including us, is not capable of being equal to God the Creator. God as being super-natural is the only being who has complete knowledge. We are unique creatures in that we can reason to knowledge which is very good, but not as complete as our Creator’s. With our knowledge and technology, we can discover how bacteria know how to multiply. When it comes to knowing the how’s and why’s of our own human nature, we look to God’s divine revelation initially found in the first three chapters of Genesis and correctly interpreted by the Catholic Church.

To answer the question “In one of the posts you asked something like what other knowledge is there apart from good and evil, would supernatural power be a source of knowledge too?”

First, “knowledge” that can be considered apart from our material world is that of God infinitely Himself. Being infinite, God creates the finite, our world and ourselves. Genesis 1:1

In the first three chapters of Genesis, we find the beginnings of our human knowledge about God and about ourselves. This is because God as Creator interacted with humans from day one. This interaction is correctly interpreted by the Catholic Church with the guidance and wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit.

Thankyou, every post you have replied to has been very informative and interesting, helping me and maybe others reach a form of understanding.

 

[DanAl]

Could you elaborate on the logical train of thought from “human nature” to “we must all have descended from a single person whose sin of eating a forbidden fruit corrupted human nature”?

We all share a common ancestor that we call Adam and we share the loss of original justice through his disobedience of God’s commandment: AKA original sin.

Pretty cut and dry, no?

 

[wmw]

Prayerful thought, what is “The knowledge of good and evil”?
I think for humans to “know” something means to truly experience it. In contrast, our modern education imparts knowledge to us in a classroom setting. Thus our modern use of the word has been removed from first person experience, but I’d assume this first person experience is the style of “knowledge” to which the name of the tree is referring.

Aside **** I’ve heard it said that the old phrase of carnal knowledge is a good example of a transition many have like this knowing about something and then practicing it later in life. I think this analogous example & terminology has backfired and now folks think the original sin was about carnal knowledge. I feel this is the misunderstood connection between original sin and carnal knowledge.] Now back to academic knowledge and experiential knowledge:

Before sinning Adam had an academic knowledge of evil. After sinning Adam has the experiential knowledge of living through the emotions, etc. of doing evil and being one with it. The consequences are now realized and lived. There is no return, no undoing, no going back to Eden. Great suffering is imparted to all from each act of evil, but the first displays the greatest transformation from all brightly good to the mix of gray in good and evil to which we’ve become accustom. Our experience of Earth is a far cry from the experience of Eden, but God will make us better for it; since, his salvation plan will turn the evils to goods. There is no going back, but if you live within the plan of salvation you will be better for it.

 

[grannymh]

We all share a common ancestor that we call Adam and we share the loss of original justice through his disobedience of God’s commandment: AKA original sin.

Pretty cut and dry, no?

Speaking for those of us who learned the Adam story in conjunction with basic, fundamental Catholic doctrines, I agree.

However, for whatever reason, learning basic Catholic doctrines on human origin, human nature, and Original Sin, has not been consistent in all geographical areas. Debating how this has happened is not the point of this thread. Instead, as OP, I chose philosophy, using logic, as a starting point for understanding Adam. Our civilization is at the point where we cannot exclude the possibility of Adam. When we automatically exclude Adam’s existence, we run the risk of missing the heart of Catholicism, the Holy Eucharist, which is God calling each of us, you and me, to share in His life (sanctifying grace), now and forever in joy eternal.

There is this important sticky at the top of this Forum. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408684

The obvious advantage of using philosophy/logic is that the skills involved with it were originally used under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the early Catholic Church struggled to retain Divine Revelation. One of the main heresies of that area is Arianism. Amazingly, forms of Arianism exist today as noted, but not specifically named, in this last sentence of paragraph 389,* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

 

[grannymh]

Prayerful thought, what is “The knowledge of good and evil”?
I think for humans to “know” something means to truly experience it. In contrast, our modern education imparts knowledge to us in a classroom setting. Thus our modern use of the word has been removed from first person experience, but I’d assume this first person experience is the style of “knowledge” to which the name of the tree is referring.

Aside **** I’ve heard it said that the old phrase of carnal knowledge is a good example of a transition many have like this knowing about something and then practicing it later in life. I think this analogous example & terminology has backfired and now folks think the original sin was about carnal knowledge. I feel this is the misunderstood connection between original sin and carnal knowledge.] Now back to academic knowledge and experiential knowledge:

Before sinning Adam had an academic knowledge of evil. After sinning Adam has the experiential knowledge of living through the emotions, etc. of doing evil and being one with it. The consequences are now realized and lived. There is no return, no undoing, no going back to Eden. Great suffering is imparted to all from each act of evil, but the first displays the greatest transformation from all brightly good to the mix of gray in good and evil to which we’ve become accustom. Our experience of Earth is a far cry from the experience of Eden, but God will make us better for it; since, his salvation plan will turn the evils to goods. There is no going back, but if you live within the plan of salvation you will be better for it.

Being honest , I am now into the third reading of your post.

This is because I have not thought of academic knowledge and experiential knowledge beyond the fact that I am currently shifting from the academic to the experiential even to the point that I want to read the first three chapters of Genesis without thinking about my shoes. Almost literally, I want to walk a mile in the writer’s moccasins–old saying from my childhood.

Academic and experiential knowledge as a way of understanding those intriguing first three Genesis chapters – that really is a “prayerful thought” as suggested in the beginning of post 251.

 

[wmw]

I don’t want to make it sound like I was getting something from beyond my living experience, but it was the stillness that that prayerful attitude that brought some of my High School theology back to me. I was writing and instead of a keyboard my minds eye could see the desktop and pencil of that day in class. It was the first real day of learning in a new semester. Credit the Christian Brother that taught the class and after the first semester of teaching some very modern psychobabble on Adult-Parent-Child relationships the OT review of the Bible was begun and something worth remembering was taught. Both things the styles of knowledge and the misunderstanding of the analogy.

I must be getting old, that was over 33 years ago.

 

[grannymh]

Researching this thread’s topic means being open to a variety of information sources.

Sometimes these sources are not found in a logical order. This morning, this granny found a beautiful, fulfilling way of describing a point which, at first glance, does not appear to belong to the present logical study of academic and experiential knowledge found in the story of Adam’s Original Sin. Yet, it is truly part of the whole picture of Adam.

The following is from the Magis Center for Catholic Spirituality , magisspirituality.org/

Ignatian Reflections
August 27, 2013

Feast of St. Monica
The grand effort of saving the human race is not simply between Jesus and the individual Christian, though this relationship plays a crucial role; rather it involves the whole of humanity. After all it was not merely Adam or Eve who fell in the Garden, nor was it merely they who fell together but rather in them fell all of humanity that was to come. Just as Christ seeks to raise us up from our fallen state, so He insists that we love others as He first loved us (Jn. 13:34-35); this means living our Christian life in such a way that we are not an obstacle to Christ’s salvific work. In fact, as the aforementioned verse teaches, it is only by sharing Christ’s love with others that we will be seen as His disciples in the first place: hence His rejection of the scribes and Pharisees.

Today’s saint is a model of exactly what we are considering this week: St. Monica threw her whole life into the salvation of her wayward son Augustine. She prayed for him, lived a model Christian life for him, sacrificed for him and, in the end, the Church was rewarded with the life of one of her greatest saints and doctors. St. Monica knew that it was Christ who would save her son, and she cooperated with Him out of love for her Lord and for her son, desiring eternal life for the child who received his mortal life through her.

Just as Christ has extended to us the open gate of salvation we ought–out of heart-felt gratitude and love for Him–bring along as many others as possible, guiding them with the firm hand of charity, the light of Christian example and the vigilance of constant prayer.
Jacob Boddicker, S.J.