Adam & Logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Review of axioms regarding Adam & Logic
using the Deductive Method of Reasoning

  1. God as Creator exists.
Therefore,
2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

Therefore,
3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
With the designation of “each individual human” in axiom 3, then, in my humble opinion, we need to switch to the Inductive (Scientific) Method which is proper when we look for information about the physical capabilities of the human species. We can observe other creatures in our material/physical universe and compare their visible actions to the visible actions of ourselves. Fundamentally, the Inductive (Scientific) Method is used in the material/physical realm of nature or natural science. Here, we build conclusions based on evidence which can be seen and examined. Use Google to search definitions of natural science(s).

It is important to note that the scientific material/physical realm is limited to the material and physical aspects of ourselves and our surroundings. :doh2:

Because we accept the truth of axiom 1. God as Creator exists, we have to continually study the spiritual realm of God. This study is necessary because our very own human nature is an unique unification of the material world and the spiritual world. This unification is not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. (CCC, 365) We are called to offer God our personal free response of faith and love that no other creature can give. (CCC, 1730) Our nature is such that we can enter into communion with our Creator. (CCC, 355-357) Being who we are, we have the freedom to explore both material and spiritual worlds. We have the freedom to creatively think beyond the boundaries of the material.

It seems to me that our intellectual freedom is evidence that we, in turn, can interact with our Creator.

Thoughts?
 
Here are some interesting thoughts IMO. Aquinas maintained that man’s will is always oriented, as to its end, towards that which makes one happy. The problem is that we don’t always know what makes us happy. I used to believe that Adam’s sin was inexcusable because, having “walked” with God in the garden, he would’ve possessed the immediate vision of God, the direct, intuitive Beatific Vision which comes as a gift of grace and which is the true source and cause of all happiness for man, that happiness which the will aspires to, which we’re all designed to want. IOW Adam should’ve already possessed all that he could desire-all that would fulfill this God-given need. And some theologians have suggested that he did, indeed, possess it. But Aquinas maintains-and this makes sense to me now-that Adam did not possess this vision, and therefore this happiness. Adam’s knowledge of God was much greater than ours but not absolute in that he did not “see” God in His essence. This is what Aquinas said:

“Now it is clear that man cannot willingly be turned away from beatitude, since naturally and necessarily he desires it, and shuns unhappiness. Wherefore no one who sees the Essence of God can willingly turn away from God, which means to sin. Hence all who see God through His Essence are so firmly established in the love of God, that for eternity they can never sin. Therefore, as Adam did sin, it is clear that he did not see God through His Essence.”

What this means is that Adam was limited in his knowledge to a very great degree-and had he possessed that knowledge he would not have sinned. And yet he was knowledgeable enough that he was held accountable; God had placed before Adam life and death.

Adam was gifted and yet was in a sort of neutral state, I believe, a state he probably couldn’t remain in without actually moving backwards: eventually he very likely had to act. He could recognize in God the source of his being and of his happiness, eating from the Tree of Life, partaking of God and growing nearer and nearer to Him, or he could eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which would result in his experiencing existence effectively separated from Him. Thoughts?
 
With the designation of “each individual human” in axiom 3, then, in my humble opinion, we need to switch to the Inductive (Scientific) Method which is proper when we look for information about the physical capabilities of the human species. We can observe other creatures in our material/physical universe and compare their visible actions to the visible actions of ourselves. Fundamentally, the Inductive (Scientific) Method is used in the material/physical realm of nature or natural science. Here, we build conclusions based on evidence which can be seen and examined. Use Google to search definitions of natural science(s).

It is important to note that the scientific material/physical realm is limited to the material and physical aspects of ourselves and our surroundings. :doh2:

Because we accept the truth of axiom 1. God as Creator exists, we have to continually study the spiritual realm of God. This study is necessary because our very own human nature is an unique unification of the material world and the spiritual world. This unification is not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. (CCC, 365) We are called to offer God our personal free response of faith and love that no other creature can give. (CCC, 1730) Our nature is such that we can enter into communion with our Creator. (CCC, 355-357) Being who we are, we have the freedom to explore both material and spiritual worlds. We have the freedom to creatively think beyond the boundaries of the material.

It seems to me that our intellectual freedom is evidence that we, in turn, can interact with our Creator.

Thoughts?
God made man the only creature that could know and love him. He allowed man his own freedom to choose, as with Adam and Eve.
Thinking of Adam and Eve’s desire to be Gods, seems this was more of a spiritual desire would you say? rather than a material one? Unless its thought of as, they were lied to by satan to believe in becoming a God that they would own the earth and everything on it.

Some people don’t seem to think outside the boundaries of the material world, they see what they see and think that is all they need to be happy, spirituality doesn’t even get a thought, until perhaps something happens that makes a person think. I suppose this maybe Gods way of interacting with his creatures when they fail to interact with him.
 
Here are some interesting thoughts IMO. Aquinas maintained that man’s will is always oriented, as to its end, towards that which makes one happy. The problem is that we don’t always know what makes us happy. I used to believe that Adam’s sin was inexcusable because, having “walked” with God in the garden, he would’ve possessed the immediate vision of God, the direct, intuitive Beatific Vision which comes as a gift of grace and which is the true source and cause of all happiness for man, that happiness which the will aspires to, which we’re all designed to want. IOW Adam should’ve already possessed all that he could desire-all that would fulfill this God-given need. And some theologians have suggested that he did, indeed, possess it. But Aquinas maintains-and this makes sense to me now-that Adam did not possess this vision, and therefore this happiness. Adam’s knowledge of God was much greater than ours but not absolute in that he did not “see” God in His essence. This is what Aquinas said:

“Now it is clear that man cannot willingly be turned away from beatitude, since naturally and necessarily he desires it, and shuns unhappiness. Wherefore no one who sees the Essence of God can willingly turn away from God, which means to sin. Hence all who see God through His Essence are so firmly established in the love of God, that for eternity they can never sin. Therefore, as Adam did sin, it is clear that he did not see God through His Essence.”

What this means is that Adam was limited in his knowledge to a very great degree-and had he possessed that knowledge he would not have sinned. And yet he was knowledgeable enough that he was held accountable; God had placed before Adam life and death.

Adam was gifted and yet was in a sort of neutral state, I believe, a state he probably couldn’t remain in without actually moving backwards: eventually he very likely had to act. He could recognize in God the source of his being and of his happiness, eating from the Tree of Life, partaking of God and growing nearer and nearer to Him, or he could eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which would result in his experiencing existence effectively separated from Him. Thoughts?
I too thought that “walked with God” meant that they saw God and could speak to him, so how could they ever fail to trust God.
But thinking on it, and learning that the goal/journey was to the Beatific Vision, I realised then that they didn’t actually see God in all his glory.
So they must have been able to talk to God, but unlike us they could have a direct conversation, I mean really hear his voice.
I think they may have been moving forwards rather than backwards, moving closer to the Beatific vision, and thats when satan appears.
🙂
 
This is what Aquinas said:

“Now it is clear that man cannot willingly be turned away from beatitude, since naturally and necessarily he desires it, and shuns unhappiness. Wherefore no one who sees the Essence of God can willingly turn away from God, which means to sin. Hence all who see God through His Essence are so firmly established in the love of God, that for eternity they can never sin. Therefore, as Adam did sin, it is clear that he did not see God through His Essence.”
This remark from Aquinas puzzles me. I would like to see it in context.

Did Satan, who was an archangel, not see God before he sinned against God?
 
This remark from Aquinas puzzles me. I would like to see it in context.

Did Satan, who was an archangel, not see God before he sinned against God?
Summa Part 1, Q 94: newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm
Somehow the angel’s criteria for justice was different from man’s. We have no way of knowing how close they were to God I suppose. Either way it does go along way to explaining how, in heaven, free will can be retained while sin is still excluded.
 
Summa Part 1, Q 94: newadvent.org/summa/1094.htm
Somehow the angel’s criteria for justice was different from man’s. We have no way of knowing how close they were to God I suppose. Either way it does go along way to explaining how, in heaven, free will can be retained while sin is still excluded.
Thanks for the citation.

You would think they would have experienced the Beatific Vision of God before they sinned by rebelling against God. Thomas does not seem to entertain that likelihood in the passage you cite.
 
Thanks for the citation.

You would think they would have experienced the Beatific Vision of God before they sinned by rebelling against God. Thomas does not seem to entertain that likelihood in the passage you cite.
No, and I believe that few Catholic theologians today entertain it either. I remember a long discussion I had with a seminarian over this topic a couple years ago and, while I supported my position well enough, he was adamant that the correct Catholic position is as Aquinas lays out. He didn’t cite the section of the Summa that I did here, however, which would’ve helped at the time. There were a few quotes I found here and there supporting an opposing opinion-but very few.
 
As one goes about examining Adam in order to determine the extent of his role as progenitor of all humankind, one observes our own inherent intellectual freedom in Adam.

The basic meaning of intellectual freedom is that humans are not limited to material world knowledge. For example, Adam, needing nourishment, had the intellectual capacity needed to adapt to garden cultivation. At the same time, Adam was free to intellectually know God and to communicate with Him. Despite our wounded human nature, our intellectual freedom is consistent with that of Adam’s.
(Genesis 2: 15-20; Genesis 3: 9-12)

Intellectual freedom is not a thing in time and space. It is an inherent property in our nature. Our human nature is an unique God-given unification of both the material world of creation and the spiritual world of the Creator. We are body and soul not as two natures combined, but rather their union forms a single nature. (CCC, 365) Because we are different in kind from all other creatures and critters, and because we did not create ourselves, it is reasonable to posit that we descended from two sole parents. The author of the first three chapters of Genesis is clear that Adam did not create himself. And our experience of propagation tells us that we are not creators of ourselves.

Again, the probable explanation for our uniqueness is that our material anatomy descended from an original person whose nature included intellectual freedom. This original ancestor had to be created by God because that is the only way this ancestor could be in the image of God. (CCC, 355-357) This follows logically from axiom 2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.

There can be plenty of speculations about the kinds of creatures God could, in His infinite power, bring into existence. The observable fact is that the human species is different in kind from all other living creatures. Two sole true fully-complete human parents of humankind is a reasonable necessity given our current wounded wonderful human nature.
 
The problem seems to have lied in Adam’s will. Like a rich kid he may’ve had all kinds of great gifts while lacking appreciation for their worth and the volition to use them as he should. God desires His creation not to abuse their free wills but to use them correctly.
This is on target. 👍
 
Thanks for the citation.

You would think they would have experienced the Beatific Vision of God before they sinned by rebelling against God. Thomas does not seem to entertain that likelihood in the passage you cite.
I think the Beatific Vision is possible only after one has surrendered to God. It is a loving relationship with our Creator. He probably knew God intellectually, but clearly, not lovingly. Something like that.
 
Review of axioms regarding Adam & Logic
using the Deductive Method of Reasoning

  1. God as Creator exists.
    Therefore,
  2. God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence.
    Therefore,
  3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.
I’m not just being contrary here, but it seems the logic of Adam is made clear by the New Testament.
Whatever I think of Adam and Eve and Genesis, exists in the context of Jesus Christ.
There exists a Triune God, Who is Love, Beauty and Truth.
As an expression of God’s love, the Word became man that we may be saved and be with Him.
He saves us from sin and the consequence of sin - death.
Sin and suffering are part of the human condition, which all human beings share.
This human condition took its form as consequence of a choice made by man at his beginning.
Therefore there was an Adam from whom came (Eve and) all mankind.
 
I’m not just being contrary here, but it seems the logic of Adam is made clear by the New Testament.
Whatever I think of Adam and Eve and Genesis, exists in the context of Jesus Christ.
There exists a Triune God, Who is Love, Beauty and Truth.
As an expression of God’s love, the Word became man that we may be saved and be with Him.
He saves us from sin and the consequence of sin - death.
Sin and suffering are part of the human condition, which all human beings share.
This human condition took its form as consequence of a choice made by man at his beginning.
Therefore there was an Adam from whom came (Eve and) all mankind.
This is the correct Catholic position, but it is not shared by all Catholics.

Depending on the geographic location, Original Sin’s necessity of one first human is extremely problematic for both Catholic lay people and clergy. According to the BioLogos Foundation, popular Christian theology does not support Adam and Eve as two, sole, real,
fully-complete human parents of all humanity. Consequently, BioLogos promotes alternate (non-Catholic) explanations for human origin.

Back in the 1940’s and earlier, some, not all, Catholics wanted to modernize Catholic teachings about Adam and Eve. Some, not all, writers and teachers started moving away from the literal events at the dawn of human history. This should not surprise anyone because similar movements happened in the early centuries of Catholicism. In fact, when one reads St. Paul, one can imagine the objections of his audience.

In spite of the turmoil over the rather simple Original Sin – Divine Revelation trumps!

Caught in the middle of the media fray are ordinary folk like this cranky granny whose faith was shaken by the news that the romantic couple Adam and Eve were simply symbols of some kind of truths. Of course, there is some symbolism attached to Adam and Eve, but that does not make them disappear into the sunset. A real Adam, in whom is the whole human race as one body of one man, did exist. And if I ever meet him, I am going to slap him upside the head.

Seriously, there are ways to defend the real existence of Adam and Eve just as there are ways to counter the objections.

As a young student in grade school, I accepted the story of Adam and Eve because I was comfortable about the circumstances surrounding God and God’s authority. My doubts about God’s existence came in high school when I stamped my foot, looked up at the sky, and said: “God. I want to know if You exist and I want to know right now.”
There was no lighting. No booming voice from the sky. Nothing. I don’t remember my exact reaction, but it went something like this – o.k. God. Since You are ignoring me, I am going to figure out Your existence by myself. And so I figured out God’s existence using the most irrational, total nonsense, imaginative proof possible and it worked. I am still comfortable about my “proof”. This story appeared as a Letter to the Editor in an old issue of This Rock magazine.

From reading hundreds of posts, I now believe that there are some, not all, people who simply want to feel comfortable about the Catholic doctrine on Adam and Eve. Not all of us are apologists. This is the reason I started looking for a simple logical easy to remember way of being comfortable with the truth.

I chose the logical, philosophical Deductive Method of Reasoning because I could start with our belief in God’s existence and I could look at my human nature in the mirror and see the resemblance to Adam. The first axiom “God as Creator exists” is a no-brainer.

The second axiom needed some work. It is now “God as Creator interacts with humans by bringing them into existence and maintaining their existence” The subject of deism in some other forums made me think that the second axiom needed to be more specific. Also, in today’s secular world, we cannot forget that God creates the spiritual soul at human conception. Our human nature, being in the image of God, is one marvelous amazing truth.

The third axiom is a “therefore” type. “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.” This axiom is loaded with possibilities. It also signals the necessity of looking at God’s nature and our own nature.

Please refer to post 830 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11709695&postcount=830

To keep us in accord with CAF policy, please note this sentence.
It is important to note that the scientific material/physical realm is limited to the material and physical aspects of ourselves and our surroundings. :doh2:

There is absolutely no need to discuss certain issues in the material/physical realm of scientists.

What can be useful is to compare other creatures to ourselves. When doing this, we automatically find that because of our spiritual soul we are peerless. We straddle both the material/physical realm of scientists and the spiritual realm of God. (CCC, 355 and following) It is our nature which makes it possible for us to interact with our Creator. (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730))

Being who we are, we have the freedom to explore both material and spiritual worlds. We have the freedom to creatively think beyond the boundaries of the material.

Thoughts?

None of the above is set in stone.
 
. . . Back in the 1940’s and earlier, some, not all, Catholics wanted to modernize Catholic teachings about Adam and Eve. Some, not all, writers and teachers started moving away from the literal events at the dawn of human history. . . There is absolutely no need to discuss certain issues in the material/physical realm of scientists. What can be useful is to compare other creatures to ourselves. When doing this, we automatically find that because of our spiritual soul we are peerless. We straddle both the material/physical realm of scientists and the spiritual realm of God. (CCC, 355 and following) It is our nature which makes it possible for us to interact with our Creator. (CCC, 355-357; CCC, 1730)) Being who we are, we have the freedom to explore both material and spiritual worlds. We have the freedom to creatively think beyond the boundaries of the material. . .
Current views (Postmodern Theology?) place scientific knowledge above religious teaching, and above what we intuit as Truth, what you mention that we “automatically find”.
What has been revealed or is simply obvious to oneself is given the label “subjective” and relegated to the dust bin of “relative truth”.
I am not sure it is possible to actually convince people who hold firm to these beliefs, that reality is otherwise.
But I am thinking that your approach, if I understand correctly, to focus on the spiritual would be preferable to challenging the science.
In the face of what is Divine, illusions vanish like darkness with the rising sun.
 
St. Thomas Aquinas said a lot of things. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition. Index of Citations, page 751-752. Paragraph 404 is a good example.

Since every view of St. Thomas has not been automatically turned into a Catholic doctrine,
and
since the Catholic reference to human nature assumes its unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds,
and
since a physical effect has to be physically described,
and
since the physical description and physical location of these physical effects have not been presented,
I am guessing that you are referring to something either outside of Catholicism or a misunderstanding of something said within Catholicism.

The wonderful thing about the Catholic Church is that it does not matter if one’s ancestors lived in Europe instead of Africa. All people, as descendants of Adam and Eve, are eligible for the Sacrament of Baptism which erases the contracted state of Original Sin. In Baptism, we receive Sanctifying Grace so that we are sharing in God’s life. Amazing!
yes, 👍 one Father, one love, one human Race

God bless
 
I came across this write up, it touches on before Adam so I’m not sure if anyone would find it interesting, but I thought it was. 🙂

Creation Corrupted by an Angelic Fall
If natural evil did not first enter the universe with the disobedience of humanity, then the objections raised by the geological and biological records are largely avoided. A number of authors have thus concluded that creation was corrupted by an angelic fall before humans appeared. Supporters of this perspective call upon the existence of fallen angelic beings before even the material universe was brought into being. These evil forces, intent on opposing God’s will, are understood to have been at work twisting God’s creative activity from the very beginning. This preserves the view that pain and suffering were introduced into the creation through the disobedience of free moral beings while recognizing the existence of pain and suffering before Adam’s Fall.

Such a position was advocated by C. S. Lewis. After arguing for the plausibility of an angelic fall, he states,

It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene: and that when man fell, someone had, indeed, tempted him.3”

Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, when reflecting on the devastation produced by the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, invoked free spiritual forces acting in defiance of God’s will.4 Michael Lloyd has further argued for the theological necessity of a cosmic angelic fall that was responsible for the corruption of the originally good creation that God intended. According to Lloyd, if the present creation is as God intended, then there would be no need for a salvation that encompasses all of creation.5

However, as pointed out by Robert Wennberg, the attribution of suffering and death in creation to an angelic fall does not in itself provide a solution to the problem of “natural evil.” Rather, it is primarily an attempt to distance God from being its direct author—to move God’s role from directly willing animal pain to permitting it in the interests of some greater good. Wennberg states,

To trace the existence of physical evil back to the destructive operations of rebellious Satanic forces is not, however, to provide anything approaching a justification of physical evil; it is only to provide a causal account, not an apologetical one. “Satan did it,” we are told, but the question that must be answered is “why did God allow Satan to do it?”6”

While the argument for an angelic fall is not inconsistent with the Bible, finding direct scriptural support is difficult at best. Attributing animal suffering and pain to the actions of such fallen powers is more difficult still. In fact, it runs into many of the same theological problems as the tracing of natural evil to the consequences of human disobedience. A satanic corruption and distortion of God’s creative activity is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the goodness of creation proclaimed in Scripture. What does the repeated pronouncement of “And God saw that it was good” over creation mean, if that same creation also bore the corrupting imprint of rebellious spiritual powers? Such a creation could not fully represent God’s good and perfect will—so how could it be declared good, in fact, “very good”? In what way could that distorted creation give praise and glory to God?

A serious theological problem is also raised by effectively attributing all manifestations of death and pain in the natural world to the forces of evil. Satan would be given a power over creation that Scripture places exclusively in God’s providential hands. All natural processes and events are undergirded by the creative and sustaining power of God. Rain or drought, plague or harvest, storm and earth- quake are all part of God’s providential action (see Amos 4:6 ff.).7 More than this, God is understood in Scripture as intimately and actively involved in the continual cycle of death and new life we observe in the natural world.

These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time.

When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things.
 When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. (Psalm 104:27–30, NIV)”

If God is thus involved in the death as well as the life of his creatures, how can this death at the same time be attributed to the spiritual forces of evil? Scripture does not seek to distance God from the ongoing death and pain present in the creation, and neither should we.
 
I came across this write up, it touches on before Adam so I’m not sure if anyone would find it interesting, but I thought it was. 🙂

Creation Corrupted by an Angelic Fall
If natural evil did not first enter the universe with the disobedience of humanity, then the objections raised by the geological and biological records are largely avoided. A number of authors have thus concluded that creation was corrupted by an angelic fall before humans appeared. Supporters of this perspective call upon the existence of fallen angelic beings before even the material universe was brought into being. These evil forces, intent on opposing God’s will, are understood to have been at work twisting God’s creative activity from the very beginning. This preserves the view that pain and suffering were introduced into the creation through the disobedience of free moral beings while recognizing the existence of pain and suffering before Adam’s Fall.

Such a position was advocated by C. S. Lewis. After arguing for the plausibility of an angelic fall, he states,

It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene: and that when man fell, someone had, indeed, tempted him.3”

Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, when reflecting on the devastation produced by the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, invoked free spiritual forces acting in defiance of God’s will.4 Michael Lloyd has further argued for the theological necessity of a cosmic angelic fall that was responsible for the corruption of the originally good creation that God intended. According to Lloyd, if the present creation is as God intended, then there would be no need for a salvation that encompasses all of creation.5

However, as pointed out by Robert Wennberg, the attribution of suffering and death in creation to an angelic fall does not in itself provide a solution to the problem of “natural evil.” Rather, it is primarily an attempt to distance God from being its direct author—to move God’s role from directly willing animal pain to permitting it in the interests of some greater good. Wennberg states,

To trace the existence of physical evil back to the destructive operations of rebellious Satanic forces is not, however, to provide anything approaching a justification of physical evil; it is only to provide a causal account, not an apologetical one. “Satan did it,” we are told, but the question that must be answered is “why did God allow Satan to do it?”6”

While the argument for an angelic fall is not inconsistent with the Bible, finding direct scriptural support is difficult at best. Attributing animal suffering and pain to the actions of such fallen powers is more difficult still. In fact, it runs into many of the same theological problems as the tracing of natural evil to the consequences of human disobedience. A satanic corruption and distortion of God’s creative activity is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the goodness of creation proclaimed in Scripture. What does the repeated pronouncement of “And God saw that it was good” over creation mean, if that same creation also bore the corrupting imprint of rebellious spiritual powers? Such a creation could not fully represent God’s good and perfect will—so how could it be declared good, in fact, “very good”? In what way could that distorted creation give praise and glory to God?

A serious theological problem is also raised by effectively attributing all manifestations of death and pain in the natural world to the forces of evil. Satan would be given a power over creation that Scripture places exclusively in God’s providential hands. All natural processes and events are undergirded by the creative and sustaining power of God. Rain or drought, plague or harvest, storm and earth- quake are all part of God’s providential action (see Amos 4:6 ff.).7 More than this, God is understood in Scripture as intimately and actively involved in the continual cycle of death and new life we observe in the natural world.

These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time.

When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things.
 When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. (Psalm 104:27–30, NIV)”

If God is thus involved in the death as well as the life of his creatures, how can this death at the same time be attributed to the spiritual forces of evil? Scripture does not seek to distance God from the ongoing death and pain present in the creation, and neither should we.
Maybe the bottom-line is that increased distance from God=increased suffering/disharmony while nearer proximity to God=increased joy/peace/order. This world is sort of a half-way house where both the good of God’s created order, justice, peace, beauty along with the evil of separation from Him, with all that entails, can be experienced-or known.
 
I came across this write up, it touches on before Adam so I’m not sure if anyone would find it interesting, but I thought it was. 🙂

Creation Corrupted by an Angelic Fall
If natural evil did not first enter the universe with the disobedience of humanity, then the objections raised by the geological and biological records are largely avoided. A number of authors have thus concluded that creation was corrupted by an angelic fall before humans appeared. Supporters of this perspective call upon the existence of fallen angelic beings before even the material universe was brought into being. These evil forces, intent on opposing God’s will, are understood to have been at work twisting God’s creative activity from the very beginning. This preserves the view that pain and suffering were introduced into the creation through the disobedience of free moral beings while recognizing the existence of pain and suffering before Adam’s Fall.

Such a position was advocated by C. S. Lewis. After arguing for the plausibility of an angelic fall, he states,

It seems to me, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or, at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene: and that when man fell, someone had, indeed, tempted him.3”

Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart, when reflecting on the devastation produced by the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, invoked free spiritual forces acting in defiance of God’s will.4 Michael Lloyd has further argued for the theological necessity of a cosmic angelic fall that was responsible for the corruption of the originally good creation that God intended. According to Lloyd, if the present creation is as God intended, then there would be no need for a salvation that encompasses all of creation.5

However, as pointed out by Robert Wennberg, the attribution of suffering and death in creation to an angelic fall does not in itself provide a solution to the problem of “natural evil.” Rather, it is primarily an attempt to distance God from being its direct author—to move God’s role from directly willing animal pain to permitting it in the interests of some greater good. Wennberg states,

To trace the existence of physical evil back to the destructive operations of rebellious Satanic forces is not, however, to provide anything approaching a justification of physical evil; it is only to provide a causal account, not an apologetical one. “Satan did it,” we are told, but the question that must be answered is “why did God allow Satan to do it?”6”

While the argument for an angelic fall is not inconsistent with the Bible, finding direct scriptural support is difficult at best. Attributing animal suffering and pain to the actions of such fallen powers is more difficult still. In fact, it runs into many of the same theological problems as the tracing of natural evil to the consequences of human disobedience. A satanic corruption and distortion of God’s creative activity is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the goodness of creation proclaimed in Scripture. What does the repeated pronouncement of “And God saw that it was good” over creation mean, if that same creation also bore the corrupting imprint of rebellious spiritual powers? Such a creation could not fully represent God’s good and perfect will—so how could it be declared good, in fact, “very good”? In what way could that distorted creation give praise and glory to God?

A serious theological problem is also raised by effectively attributing all manifestations of death and pain in the natural world to the forces of evil. Satan would be given a power over creation that Scripture places exclusively in God’s providential hands. All natural processes and events are undergirded by the creative and sustaining power of God. Rain or drought, plague or harvest, storm and earth- quake are all part of God’s providential action (see Amos 4:6 ff.).7 More than this, God is understood in Scripture as intimately and actively involved in the continual cycle of death and new life we observe in the natural world.

These all look to you to give them their food at the proper time.

When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things.
 When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust.

When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. (Psalm 104:27–30, NIV)”

If God is thus involved in the death as well as the life of his creatures, how can this death at the same time be attributed to the spiritual forces of evil? Scripture does not seek to distance God from the ongoing death and pain present in the creation, and neither should we.
It is very interesting.

Quick observation which is often forgotten. Material creatures, such as dinosaurs, birds, and bees, are not immortal. Therefore, their deaths are attributed to their nature and not to “spiritual forces of evil”.

When we explore the logic of Adam’s existence, we have to factor in that his anatomy was mortal material and naturally subject to death. It was God the Creator Who gave Adam the extraordinary gift of immortality. A strict condition is attached to this gift. “As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die.” (CCC, 374-376)

Satan, by his lies, urged the destruction of Adam and Eve’s gift of immortality. (Genesis 3: 4) But because of Adam’s spiritual/material nature in which was all humanity as one body of one man, it was Adam who brought death into human life. (Romans 5: 12-21;* CCC*, 404) In addition, it is because of Adam’s spiritual/material nature that he knew full well what he was choosing and doing.

My apology. I will continue my reply later.
 
Current views (Postmodern Theology?) place scientific knowledge above religious teaching, and above what we intuit as Truth, what you mention that we “automatically find”.
What has been revealed or is simply obvious to oneself is given the label “subjective” and relegated to the dust bin of “relative truth”.
I am not sure it is possible to actually convince people who hold firm to these beliefs, that reality is otherwise.
But I am thinking that your approach, if I understand correctly, to focus on the spiritual would be preferable to challenging the science.
In the face of what is Divine, illusions vanish like darkness with the rising sun.
Post 843 describes our goal. Especially these two sentences.
But I am thinking that your approach, if I understand correctly,
to focus on the spiritual would be preferable to challenging the science.

In the face of what is Divine, illusions vanish like darkness with the rising sun
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top