Adam & Logic

[oldcelt]

Free will isn’t eliminated by any form of baptism. Nor does anyone go to hell on account of original sin:

If an act is performed on you without your consent, that is a denial of free will. I have people who can speak for me if I am disabled, but that and they were my choice. Under infant baptism, that is not so.
I barely knew my God -parents, and did not agree to join anything or to allow them to force me to grow up in that organization…my free will was denied shortly after my birth. Of course, without original sin, none of that would be needed. That’s why we in my area were taught of Limbo…the place for unbaptized souls who were not pure enough to see the Creator…the one who supposedly had created them only recently and knew all about it.

 

[oldcelt]

ah, hypotheticals, sigh

CCC- 1281: Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

In your imagined scenario, the person would have had to refuse it for reasons inspired by grace and in an attempt to do His will. I’m not sure how this would all happen in reality, but there you go.

Therefore, original sin is the downfall.

 

[tonyrey]

If an act is performed on you without your consent, that is a denial of free will. I have people who can speak for me if I am disabled, but that and they were my choice. Under infant baptism, that is not so.

The parent acts on the infant’s behalf because the infant doesn’t have free will.

I barely knew my God -parents, and did not agree to join anything or to allow them to force me to grow up in that organization…my free will was denied shortly after my birth.

Do you think children can be brought up in a moral vacuum? Your free will wasn’t denied because you didn’t have freewill.

Of course, without original sin, none of that would be needed.

You don’t believe we live in a morally contaminated society and doing what is wrong is more enticing than doing what is right? You wouldn’t attempt to warn them about the evil in the world and just let them find out for themselves?

That’s why we in my area were taught of Limbo…the place for unbaptized souls who were not pure enough to see the Creator…the one who supposedly had created them only recently and knew all about it.

Limbo was never a Church doctrine.

 

[grannymh]

Reality…I lived it along with millions of others. Strawman is an attempt to deflect the obvious truth that this little tale was turned into a horrid control element when someone brain-stormed and came up with “original sin.” For Adam and Eve, maybe, but to share it with every human being throughout all time?

You have my sincere sympathy. I am sorry.

On my part, I can only thank God that my Catholic grade school, K-8, taught actual Catholic doctrines. Please reread post 430 as it describes a reasonable sequence of instruction for young students.

I cannot know the depth of pain caused by wolves in sheep’s clothing. I can only hope to present the truth of Catholicism as a way of dispersing troubling shadows.

 

[grannymh]

Back to the topic of this thread.

Paragraph 404, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?** The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”**293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” — a state and not an act. (360, 50)

Footnote 293 is St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1.
Footnote 294 is Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512.

In my humble opinion, the statement in bold in the above CCC, 404, meets the requirements expressed in post 1. This comment from St. Thomas Aquinas, “As one body of one man”, in my humble opinion, leads to the conclusion that there was only one real original true first fully-complete human person and his spouse at the beginning of human history.
They, alone, are the common origin of all humankind.

In addition, there have been other important axioms and reasons, on this thread, that support the Catholic explanation of Adam and Eve’s reality. It is my intention to put everything together as a research-type paper.

Since this is the Philosophy Forum, I look forward to reading posts about De Malo 4.1, and my personal opinions. My opinions are not infallible.

Thank you to all who have contributed. Dedication to Catholicism shines brightly.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Back to the topic of this thread.

Paragraph 404, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?** The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.”**293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” — a state and not an act. (360, 50)

Footnote 293 is St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1.
Footnote 294 is Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512.

In my humble opinion, the statement in bold in the above CCC, 404, meets the requirements expressed in post 1. This comment from St. Thomas Aquinas, “As one body of one man”, in my humble opinion, leads to the conclusion that there was only one real original true first fully-complete human person and his spouse at the beginning of human history.
They, alone, are the common origin of all humankind.

In addition, there have been other important axioms and reasons, on this thread, that support the Catholic explanation of Adam and Eve’s reality. It is my intention to put everything together as a research-type paper.

Since this is the Philosophy Forum, I look forward to reading posts about De Malo 4.1, and my personal opinions. My opinions are not infallible.

Thank you to all who have contributed. Dedication to Catholicism shines brightly.

The problem, IMO, is St.Thomas believes that because we are physically descendant we are spiritually inheritors. Our spirituality would be dependent the physical nature of our parents. If we were conceived while they were in a state of mortal sin, then we would be born in a state of mortal sin. I’ve not seen that as Catholic teaching. If it not true of our parents I don’t see how it can extend to Adam. Wicked people would beget other wicked people.

 

[grannymh]

Yes to share in Gods life for eternity comes from God.

No I believe God loves us as he loved the first humans.

Thank you.

Does it matter if Adam is of grace and we are in the state of contracted O.S…to me yes.

I do not mean to be rude. But, you have shifted from God’s position to our position. You agreed that the offer to share in God’s life for eternity comes from God. Now, without shifting to Adam and ourselves, what questions would follow naturally from God making the offer?

Most likely, the questions would center on God. Does God have the power to do so?
Will God take back His offer if “circumstances” are not right? Is this offer a sign of God’s love? The question I chose about God in post 419 was:
“Does God have the power and the love to offer the same invitation to human nature regardless of whether or not the person has the rank of being the first human being?”
Actually, that question contains more than one issue. So I waited to give others a chance to think about that question.

I took your reply as addressing the issue of God’s love which does go out to all people. That being the case, when it comes time to shift to Adam and ourselves, we find that God offers His gift of eternal joy in His Presence equally to both Adam and ourselves because we both have human nature. Human nature, itself, does not radically change into something else because one person is in the state of Sanctifying Grace and someone else is in the contracted state of Original Sin.

All living biological organisms which have a true, fully-complete human nature have the capability to share in God’s life. The key is understanding all that is involved with human nature. We are the peerless pinnacle of our universe.

Adam possessed more than we ever can, no matter how much we ask for grace from God.

Here is the shift back to Adam and ourselves. It is a general speculation. In contrast, the Catholic doctrine is that *both *Adam and ourselves have a human nature. General speculations about non-doctrine issues may contain some possibilities as long as they do not contradict the actual doctrine. Adam’s human nature has been contradicted many times. That is why I deliberately used the phrase, in post 419, “offer the same invitation to human nature.”

Adam and Eve knew no death, pain or suffering of any sort, until they are deceived by satan.

The bit about “knew no death” has been used to deny the human nature of Adam.
Since that topic has been addressed in numerous threads, I am concerned about it derailing this thread. On the other hand, since my position is that Adam was part of humankind, he had to “know death” before Satan tempted him. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Plus common sense about our material world says that human nature includes the decomposing anatomy. (CCC, 355)

Right now, it is more important to establish the validity of post 439 since that can be seen as a basic premise or axiom in the logic of Adam. Maybe in another thread, interested people can play the semantics game regarding the word “know.”

God could have just punished satan, if angels are different to humans, why punish the human for the fault of the angel?

My suggestion is to read “The Fall of the Angels” CCC, 391-395. There is so much pertinent information in these paragraphs that I am unable to summarize it.

As for punishing the human for the fault of the angel, what is being denied is Adam’s rational intellect and choice of action. I am sure you did not mean a denial. However, that is the implication. Figuring out “human fault” is another problem because, too often, the facts in CCC, 404-405 and in CCC, 1730, have not be adequately taught.

Who is this God?..is that a trick question?

Yes, it is a trick question. I ask this because anthropomorphism, humanization, is often used in posts about God in the Garden of Eden.

 

[simpleas]

The bit about “knew no death” has been used to deny the human nature of Adam.
Since that topic has been addressed in numerous threads, I am concerned about it derailing this thread. On the other hand, since my position is that Adam was part of humankind, he had to “know death” before Satan tempted him. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Plus common sense about our material world says that human nature includes the decomposing anatomy. (CCC, 355)

Forgive me for sounding like a idiot, but the passage below reads to me that, when we die we as a soul and human will be resurrected (hopefully) by Christ himself. So Adam being a human was already living as a soul and human that would not have died a bodily death or spiritual until he disobeyed God.
We are promised a new Kingdom in heaven as pure souls, does this include also human in another new earth, thats why Christ came back as showing himself as human and not just a spirit?

I don’t wish this thread to be derailed into arguing if adam was human or not, I believe he was a full human, but had gifts from God that he lost for himself and us through sin.

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

 

[simpleas]

As for punishing the human for the fault of the angel, what is being denied is Adam’s rational intellect and choice of action. I am sure you did not mean a denial. However, that is the implication. Figuring out “human fault” is another problem because, too often, the facts in CCC, 404-405 and in CCC, 1730, have not be adequately taught.

No I did not mean denial of Adam’s intellect and choice of his action. If I think of him as much as a human as I am, then I can relate to him very easily. What I see is some difference between Angels and Humans.
I will have a read at CCC 404-405 and 1730.
Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

The bit about “knew no death” has been used to deny the human nature of Adam.
Since that topic has been addressed in numerous threads, I am concerned about it derailing this thread. On the other hand, since my position is that Adam was part of humankind, he had to “know death” before Satan tempted him. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Plus common sense about our material world says that human nature includes the decomposing anatomy. (CCC, 355)

Forgive me for sounding like a idiot, but the passage below reads to me that, when we die we as a soul and human will be resurrected (hopefully) by Christ himself. So Adam being a human was already living as a soul and human that would not have died a bodily death or spiritual until he disobeyed God.
We are promised a new Kingdom in heaven as pure souls, does this include also human in another new earth, thats why Christ came back as showing himself as human and not just a spirit?

I don’t wish this thread to be derailed into arguing if adam was human or not, I believe he was a full human, but had gifts from God that he lost for himself and us through sin.

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

Also for me to understand that Adam was always going to die and therefore knew death even though genesis says he would surely die when he ate of the tree, is what I’m questioning.

 

[oldcelt]

The problem, IMO, is St.Thomas believes that because we are physically descendant we are spiritually inheritors. Our spirituality would be dependent the physical nature of our parents. If we were conceived while they were in a state of mortal sin, then we would be born in a state of mortal sin. I’ve not seen that as Catholic teaching. If it not true of our parents I don’t see how it can extend to Adam. Wicked people would beget other wicked people.

Agreed. The churches could not allow the people to escape the sin of Adam. It would have put them out of a job if sin didn’t automatically pass from one generation to another. They need sinners in the pews to fill the coffers.
If there is no Adam, no OS, no Satan, no God…what would these gigantic bureaucracies be doing now?
They had to have Eden and they had to use it the right way to scare the peasantry.

 

[grannymh]

The bit about “knew no death” has been used to deny the human nature of Adam.
Since that topic has been addressed in numerous threads, I am concerned about it derailing this thread. On the other hand, since my position is that Adam was part of humankind, he had to “know death” before Satan tempted him. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Plus common sense about our material world says that human nature includes the decomposing anatomy. (CCC, 355)

Forgive me for sounding like a idiot, but the passage below reads to me that, when we die we as a soul and human will be resurrected (hopefully) by Christ himself. So Adam being a human was already living as a soul and human that would not have died a bodily death or spiritual until he disobeyed God.
We are promised a new Kingdom in heaven as pure souls, does this include also human in another new earth, thats why Christ came back as showing himself as human and not just a spirit?

I don’t wish this thread to be derailed into arguing if adam was human or not, I believe he was a full human, but had gifts from God that he lost for himself and us through sin.

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

Knowing that Adam is a fully-complete human person is important to this thread.

Adam did have special gifts which depended on his relationship with his Creator. When Adam broke his relationship with God, via Original Sin, the gift of immortality was lost. I just briefly read your post 444. I agree that Adam knew the limitations of a material anatomy; thus, he could die. He would recognize the gift of freedom from death when he heard God’s commandment.

A double death is seen in God’s command. Disobedience would also cause the death of humanity’s relationship with divinity.

There is no division of body and soul after our resurrection. This is signified in the above quote “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity.”

The initial reason that Jesus is incarnate, that is He assumed human nature, is that Adam, a human, could not atone or make amends on the divine level of God. Jesus was one person with two natures, one divine the other human. Therefore, He could in justice atone for Original Sin. There are other descriptive reasons for the human nature assumed by Jesus; however, the necessity of “True Man and True God” is the basic one.

From the beginning, St. Paul found a very strong connection between Adam’s Original Sin and Christ’s salvific mission for all people, then and now. (Romans 5: 12-2; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; 1 Corinthians 15: 45-49) This need for sovereign justice also follows from the fact that all humankind was in Adam “as one body of one man”.

FYI
I am starting a major research project so I am not sure when I will be able to respond to this thread. Please keep the door open and the light on for me.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The initial reason that Jesus is incarnate, that is He assumed human nature, is that Adam, a human, could not atone or make amends on the divine level of God. Jesus was one person with two natures, one divine the other human. Therefore, He could in justice atone for Original Sin. There are other descriptive reasons for the human nature assumed by Jesus; however, the necessity of “True Man and True God” is the basic one.

This seems to suggest that there is a power that God is subject to. If God has to jump through hoops (become incarnate) to make the atonement. Either He is atoning to Himself, and it becomes a grand but empty gesture or He is atoning to something that is beyond his control, so He needs to play by a certain set of rules in order for it to work or be valid.

 

[oldcelt]

This seems to suggest that there is a power that God is subject to. If God has to jump through hoops (become incarnate) to make the atonement. Either He is atoning to Himself, and it becomes a grand but empty gesture or He is atoning to something that is beyond his control, so He needs to play by a certain set of rules in order for it to work or be valid.

It certainly does and I had never considered it until now. It does, however, jive with an idea I’m working on that the image of God was taken from the Kings and rulers that everyone in that time would have known. Never having seen God, the authors modeled Him after earthly Kings who were known to make sacrifice.

Your point about atoning to Himself is very good. Omnipotents should be able to just wave a hand and have it done.

 

[Aloysium]

this seems to suggest that there is a power that god is subject to. If god has to jump through hoops (become incarnate) to make the atonement. Either he is atoning to himself, and it becomes a grand but empty gesture or he is atoning to something that is beyond his control, so he needs to play by a certain set of rules in order for it to work or be valid.

it certainly does and i had never considered it until now. It does, however, jive with an idea i’m working on that the image of god was taken from the kings and rulers that everyone in that time would have known. Never having seen god, the authors modeled him after earthly kings who were known to make sacrifice.

Your point about atoning to himself is very good. Omnipotents should be able to just wave a hand and have it done.

I don’t believe in the gods you are referring to.
I would be careful about where your beliefs are leading you.
View attachment 19027

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I don’t believe in the gods you are referring to.
I would be careful about where your beliefs are leading you.
View attachment 19027

Then, to whom does God pay the ransom or atone to?

 

[Aloysium]

Then, to whom does God pay the ransom or atone to?

If you were genuine, you would actually ask Him.
It is not a question that arises in my mind.
Sorry if my words and understanding are insufficient here. You are asking a random guy on the Internet, after all.

I imagine that goodness has a moral order.
This is no dream. This is reality. There is justice.
Our having free will does not mean we can do what we please without the consequences rippling through time.
To maintain this order, the foundations of which were laid at the beginning of time, justice has to be done.
We offend Love when we sin; that offense must be dealt with.
He could cause a flood as He did when humanity, at an earlier time, was almost completely lost.
Now He takes it upon Himself.

It’s something like that.

Don’t forget that on the cross:
He is with us in the depths of our suffering.
He shows that death, evil, sin have no power against Love, the Light, Existence.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

If you were genuine, you would actually ask Him.
It is not a question that arises in my mind.
Sorry if my words and understanding are insufficient here. You are asking a random guy on the Internet, after all.

I imagine that goodness has a moral order.
This is no dream. This is reality. There is justice.
Our having free will does not mean we can do what we please without the consequences rippling through time.
To maintain this order, the foundations of which were laid at the beginning of time, justice has to be done.
We offend Love when we sin; that offense must be dealt with.
He could cause a flood as He did when humanity, at an earlier time, was almost completely lost.
Now He takes it upon Himself.

It’s something like that.

Don’t forget that on the cross:
He is with us in the depths of our suffering.
He shows that death, evil, sin have no power against Love, the Light, Existence.

if God is love (John 4:8) then He is atoning to Himself.

 

[Aloysium]

if God is love (John 4:8) then He is atoning to Himself.

You did not understand me; actually, I don’t get what you are asking.
Ask Him, He knows what you mean

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t believe in the gods you are referring to.
I would be careful about where your beliefs are leading you.
View attachment 19027

The exact same place that yours are leading you…to an eventual understanding…maybe.