Adam & Logic

[Charlemagne_III]

** All of us need to remember**
** that not every word of St. Augustine **
** and the Early Church Fathers **
** is automatically a Catholic doctrine. **

​

Indeed, many of their words are NOT Catholic doctrine.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is also a bit problematic though, isn’t it? In Catholic teaching Adam simply fell to a “natural” state, without possession of the supernatural and preternatural gifts which are not an essential part of man’s nature-and which are, therefore, only available to man to the extent that he remains in communion with God.

This is not quite true because the supernatural and preternatural gifts endowed human beings with capabilities far beyond those of biological nature. All of these gifts were not simply incapacitated but, rather, some were ‘perverted’ or altered by the fall, meaning that the fallen state was not merely a ‘natural’ one, but in some sense an ‘enhanced’ natural one where vestiges of those supernatural gifts continue to operate in some debilitated form.

Justice nevertheless demands that we remain in this communion, because of the havoc raised by sin when any part of creation lies outside of God’s perfect will. Jesus came to restore this justice to us, to reconcile us with God and elevate us back to the heights that He created us to exist in-or even higher yet than Adam was first created in-but he won’t force us to do so any more than he forced Adam to. An aspect of our justice, apparently, is that we *will *it, as God aids us with the help of His grace.

Our willingness to cooperate with grace is not necessarily a ‘higher’ state than Adam’s although there will be some element of permanency built into the restored state - which remains somewhat of a puzzlement in terms of reconciling that permanency with freedom so a repeat of the fall does not occur. Perhaps the intimate experience of the fallen state in each of our lives in contrast to the beatific vision along with a stint in Purgatory will suffice to inhibit a repeat of the Garden.

 

[fhansen]

This is not quite true because the supernatural and preternatural gifts endowed human beings with capabilities far beyond those of biological nature. All of these gifts were not simply incapacitated but, rather, some were ‘perverted’ or altered by the fall, meaning that the fallen state was not merely a ‘natural’ one, but in some sense an ‘enhanced’ natural one where vestiges of those supernatural gifts continue to operate in some debilitated form.

Our willingness to cooperate with grace is not necessarily a ‘higher’ state than Adam’s although there will be some element of permanency built into the restored state - which remains somewhat of a puzzlement in terms of reconciling that permanency with freedom so a repeat of the fall does not occur. Perhaps the intimate experience of the fallen state in each of our lives in contrast to the beatific vision along with a stint in Purgatory will suffice to inhibit a repeat of the Garden.

The higher state is simply one that’s been speculated on by Catholic thinkers, and mentioned in the Catechism incidentally. As for our wills being part of our justice, that’s my opinion, but as Anselm arrived at, the will was Adam’s primary problem in his separation from God, and since God won’t force us to obey, the will is still the “prize” so to speak as I see it. I believe God’s purpose here is to draw us into greater and greater faith in and love for Him, without the benefit of “sight”, and the Beatific Vision will seal the deal in the end where our greatest desire will finally be “seen” or realized and any other desires will be excluded, proven to be comparatively, absolutely, worthless.

Another way to state this is to say that the more we freely love God in this life with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the greater our justice.

 

[OneSheep]

Thanks for the link, pretty interesting. I have not seen the movie.

Here is what i have read about St Augustine’s view of sexuality, I’m not sure if this is a correct description :

For Augustine, the evil of sexual immorality was not in the sexual act itself, but rather in the emotions that typically accompany it. In On Christian Doctrine Augustine contrasts love, which is enjoyment on account of God, and lust, which is not on account of God.[125] For Augustine, proper love exercises a denial of selfish pleasure and the subjugation of corporeal desire to God. He wrote that the pious virgins raped during the sack of Rome, were innocent because they did not intend to sin.[126][127]

Augustine’s view of sexual feelings as sinful affected his view of women. For example he considered a man’s erection to be sinful, though involuntary,[128] because it did not take place under his conscious control. His solution was to place controls on women to limit their ability to influence men.[129]

Ya gotta love St. Augustine. So typical for his time, but so far away from modern PC. His reaction to sexuality, I think, was quite natural, at least on the second look. I see it this way: everyone is “invaded” by their own sexuality sometime in the pre-teen or teenage years. At first, the invasion is a bit scary but it is mainly a matter of pleasure, or at least potential pleasure. However, after some experience dealing with the “invasion”, I think it is pretty common for people to be (at least subconsciously) somewhat resentful of their sex drives. Do you agree? Our desiring self becomes part of our “shadow”, part of the self that we despise and do not want to own.

Oh, and how convenient to blame it on the women. Our Muslim friends… well, let’s say that the attitude is not limited to Christianity.

He believed that the serpent approached Eve because she was less rational and lacked self-control, while Adam’s choice to eat was viewed as an act of kindness so that Eve would not be left alone.[129] Augustine believed sin entered the world because man (the spirit) did not exercise control over woman (the flesh).[130] Augustine’s views on women were not all negative, however. In his Tractates on the Gospel of John, Augustine, commenting on the Samaritan woman from John 4:1–42, uses the woman as a figure of the church.

According to Raming, the authority of the Decretum Gratiani, a collection of Roman Catholic canon law which prohibits women from leading, teaching, or being a witness, rests largely on the views of the early church fathers—one of the most influential being St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo.[131] The laws and traditions founded upon St. Augustine’s views of sexuality and women continue to exercise considerable influence over church doctrinal positions regarding the role of women in the church.[132]

This sentence is alittle confusing to me… Thoughts anyone?

Augustine believed sin entered the world because man (the spirit) did not exercise control over woman (the flesh).

My thoughts: confusing to me too. I am looking at giving him the benefit of the doubt, but that would be…? Augustine was full of self-contradiction. Like all of us, he was trying to work it out.

 

[OneSheep]

I was wondering what onesheep meant by the sentence “Jesus came to save us from our nature, our good nature.”

And thought it meant something like, people believe what they are doing is good and for the good of others, when in fact its wrong and that Jesus opens our eyes to see what we think is our good nature is actually killing us and others.

If it is helpful, I define our nature in terms of drives, appetites, capacities, etc. Actual behaviors are individual choices. People make hurtful, bad choices. Bad choices are a manifestation of good nature filtered through ignorance and blindness.

Jesus came to save us from our ignorance and blindness, which are arguably part of our good nature. To me, blindness is a necessary phenomenon, as I explained elsewhere (to you, but not on this thread), and ignorance is, well, a lack of wisdom which is overcome more each day. Is ignorance a “good” part of our nature? To me, it is rather neutral. Ignorance just is, it is a mystery. All creatures with a brain are born knowing less than they do before they experience the world.

Back to the topic, though, I contemplated a bit today about the idea of man’s “fallen” nature, and I have a possible theory about the appeal of such a way of thinking.

Have you heard of what some refer to as the “tyranny of the mind”?

Do you look at your past as the “good old days”? Many, if not most, people find their past much rosier than their present. Why? We really do forget more of the bad things that happen in our lives than the good things. We want to forget, and we actually do. We remember parts of our lives that are more pleasant to revisit.

So, of course it is going to seem like we come from a better state than we are today. Today is full of stress and anxiety and so forth. Childhoods were wonderful and worry free, at least that is the appearance. It is the tyranny of the mind. It’s not bad, though. It just gives us an unrealistic view of the past.

A story about man being better “before” is going to be the one that is going to make sense to more people.

Once in awhile, when I am in the fields, I pick up a stone that was pretty obviously a stone tool used by a native American. I have seen dozens of these. In the old days, I used to long to have lived the simple life of one of those natives. Once, however, I picked up one of those stones and said to myself, “this was last held by a person who probably fretted about his future, regretted his pains, stressed a little about relationships, and had to deal with his own set of inherited appetites and capacities.”

I don’t idealize life in the past anymore.

 

[grannymh]

Review of this thread’s 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.

Apparently, we are at the point of discussing human nature. Since there are not a variety of basic human natures, this leads to the simple fact that there could only be a single source of current human nature. That source is the real existence of the first basic human nature.

Therefore, this thread is successful in demonstrating the existence of two sole real fully-complete human parents, Adam and Eve, as founders of all humankind.

 

[simpleas]

The higher state is simply one that’s been speculated on by Catholic thinkers, and mentioned in the Catechism incidentally. As for our wills being part of our justice, that’s my opinion, but as Anselm arrived at, the will was Adam’s primary problem in his separation from God, and since God won’t force us to obey, the will is still the “prize” so to speak as I see it. I believe God’s purpose here is to draw us into greater and greater faith in and love for Him, without the benefit of “sight”, and the Beatific Vision will seal the deal in the end where our greatest desire will finally be “seen” or realized and any other desires will be excluded, proven to be comparatively, absolutely, worthless.

Another way to state this is to say that the more we freely love God in this life with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the greater our justice.

I’m afraid I’m derailing this thread so my apologies to all.

Your thinking on

Another way to state this is to say that the more we freely love God in this life with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the greater our justice.

So how do we do this? How do we freely love God with our whole being if there are rules and regulations telling us how, why and who God is?
I know we need such imformation as children, and some need in well into adulthood, but then there is a point when we do think differently about God.
Like, we have come along way since the ideas held by the jews concerning a whole variety of issues.
Praying seems to be the biggest answer to some on how they love God with their whole being, but we ( i’m becoming more aware of) know that it is in the actions of our deeds. Jesus points that out to us.
We love God with all our being when we can treat, help and care for all people, rather than sticking to a set of rules.
God would be interacting through us this way I think.
(not that i’m saying rules etc are wrong)

 

[fhansen]

I’m afraid I’m derailing this thread so my apologies to all.

Your thinking on

Another way to state this is to say that the more we freely love God in this life with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the greater our justice.

So how do we do this? How do we freely love God with our whole being if there are rules and regulations telling us how, why and who God is?
I know we need such imformation as children, and some need in well into adulthood, but then there is a point when we do think differently about God.
Like, we have come along way since the ideas held by the jews concerning a whole variety of issues.
Praying seems to be the biggest answer to some on how they love God with their whole being, but we ( i’m becoming more aware of) know that it is in the actions of our deeds. Jesus points that out to us.
We love God with all our being when we can treat, help and care for all people, rather than sticking to a set of rules.
God would be interacting through us this way I think.
(not that i’m saying rules etc are wrong)

Yes, the rules, the doctrine, the dogma are all ultimately aimed at a much higher goal: the knowledge of God-as opposed to strictly knowledge about God. Our faith, itself, is a relatively dim foretaste of this knowledge according to our catechism and also scripture:
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

And yes, love of God and neighbor is the fulfillment of this goal, the purpose and consequence of this knowledge; this love actually defines man’s justice in my understanding, and love, being infinite in scale, is a justice we can continually grow in, beginning here.

We achieve it to the extent that we want it and seek God for it. Love is the greatest of the three theological or supernatural virtues and as such is not obtainable, to the degree God desires for us, without grace, without partnership with Him, IOW.

 

[grannymh]

I’m afraid I’m derailing this thread so my apologies to all.

Your thinking on

Another way to state this is to say that the more we freely love God in this life with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, the greater our justice.

So how do we do this? How do we freely love God with our whole being if there are rules and regulations telling us how, why and who God is?

I put the pertinent sentences in bold.

I am thinking that when this thread reaches the limit for posts, that the next thread could possibly be Adam & the Logic of God.

In the meantime, I am betting that Adam logically had the same rules and regulations telling us how, why and who God is – that you are currently referring to as an “if”. This would follow from the third axiom (see post 975) “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.”

I know we need such information as children, and some need in well into adulthood, but then there is a point when we do think differently about God.
Like, we have come along way since the ideas held by the jews concerning a whole variety of issues.
Praying seems to be the biggest answer to some on how they love God with their whole being, but we ( i’m becoming more aware of) know that it is in the actions of our deeds. Jesus points that out to us.
We love God with all our being when we can treat, help and care for all people, rather than sticking to a set of rules.
God would be interacting through us this way I think.
(not that i’m saying rules etc are wrong)

In the spirit of reality, would you be interested in naming the “sticking to a set of rules” and the “… actions of our deeds. Jesus points that out.”

Thank you.

 

[simpleas]

I put the pertinent sentences in bold.

I am thinking that when this thread reaches the limit for posts, that the next thread could possibly be Adam & the Logic of God.

In the meantime, I am betting that Adam logically had the same rules and regulations telling us how, why and who God is – that you are currently referring to as an “if”. This would follow from the third axiom (see post 975) “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.”

In the spirit of reality, would you be interested in naming the “sticking to a set of rules” and the “… actions of our deeds. Jesus points that out.”

Thank you.

This from mark 10:17-27.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A17-27&version=NASB

The young man is concerned about eternal life, believes himself to obey all the commandments, but when Jesus asks him to sell his possessions and give to the poor, he goes away sad. He was more worried over what he was doing right, than sharing what he had with people who had nothing.

Adam had one rule which of course he broke.

I have not come across text that states there was only two first humans in the garden at the time of the fall. I can accept two humans made by God and in his image. What my tiny 21st century brain fails on, is understanding Adams experience of the world, God, and Eve with just himself and Eve alone.

This is my new quote : “I know that I know nothing” (socrates)

 

[grannymh]

I have not come across text that states there was only two first humans in the garden at the time of the fall.

The texts are Genesis, chapters 1-3. No other humans are mentioned.

 

[simpleas]

The texts are Genesis, chapters 1-3. No other humans are mentioned.

Yes thanks.
Wasn’t Exodus written before Genesis? Plenty of humans around then. I thought the story of A&E was to teach that God made the first man and woman, so no need to mention or think about any off spring being in the garden also.
It was an account of what the first couple did and how sin entered the world. Doesn’t mean to say they hadn’t had children first.

 

[grannymh]

Because this thread is close to the limit for posts,

I would sincerely appreciate knowing if there is anyone who understood, not necessarily agreeing with, the numerous demonstrations and suggestions for the existence of two, sole, real, fully-complete human founders of humanity which were presented on this thread.

I used the doctrines of Catholicism as a base.

I realize that all the speculations about what Adam did or didn’t do and what the author of Genesis did or didn’t write and what kind of nature Adam had or didn’t have are pertinent to the logic of Adam. Thank you all for your delightful posts on those subjects.

Do continue since I have finished my contribution.

If I missed a discussion post on the primary topic, which was in keeping with the ban on evolution discussion, I sincerely apologize.

Thank you all. This has been a true learning experience for me.

Blessings,
granny

 

[simpleas]

Yes, the rules, the doctrine, the dogma are all ultimately aimed at a much higher goal: the knowledge of God-as opposed to strictly knowledge about God. Our faith, itself, is a relatively dim foretaste of this knowledge according to our catechism and also scripture:
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

And yes, love of God and neighbor is the fulfillment of this goal, the purpose and consequence of this knowledge; this love actually defines man’s justice in my understanding, and love, being infinite in scale, is a justice we can continually grow in, beginning here.

We achieve it to the extent that we want it and seek God for it. Love is the greatest of the three theological or supernatural virtues and as such is not obtainable, to the degree God desires for us, without grace, without partnership with Him, IOW.

Thanks
A&E had grace, supernatural gift of sharing in Gods life without having to work for it, because they didn’t need to fight against anything or anyone else. Until the serpent makes an appearance. It causes them to lose the gift of grace, because they both had rational thought. They could think for themselves, good rational people, supernatural to a degree.
How now do some people who teach about God and grace, be filled with grace and still sin in horrendous ways? Could it be because they only think they are righteous and full of grace, but deep down they haven’t opened their soul to God at all?

 

[simpleas]

Because this thread is close to the limit for posts,

I would sincerely appreciate knowing if there is anyone who understood, not necessarily agreeing with, the numerous demonstrations and suggestions for the existence of two, sole, real, fully-complete human founders of humanity which were presented on this thread.

I used the doctrines of Catholicism as a base.

I realize that all the speculations about what Adam did or didn’t do and what the author of Genesis did or didn’t write and what kind of nature Adam had or didn’t have are pertinent to the logic of Adam. Thank you all for your delightful posts on those subjects.

Do continue since I have finished my contribution.

If I missed a discussion post on the primary topic, which was in keeping with the ban on evolution discussion, I sincerely apologize.

Thank you all. This has been a true learning experience for me.

Blessings,
granny

Thank you grannymh for all your post’s and starting this thread. Much to re-read, learn and apperciate.
God bless

 

[wmw]

Thanks and blessings to Grannymh!

 

[fhansen]

How now do some people who teach about God and grace, be filled with grace and still sin in horrendous ways? Could it be because they only think they are righteous and full of grace, but deep down they haven’t opened their soul to God at all?

Yes, of course, grace and sin are mutually exclusive; grace counters sin. The act of the Atonement is a demonstration of sheer grace-of light-entering the world while man preferred darkness, preferring his sin-it’s God working here in and through us while we’re yet sinners: “where sin abounds grace abounds” (Rom 5:20) -but for the ultimate purpose of overcoming sin, of bringing light to flood that darkness. And self-professions or posturings of being grace-filled are often nothing more or less than instances of plain old everyday human hypocrisy.

 

[wmw]

I think true hyprocrisy is a serious and special case of purposely planning to commit a sin while professing that the same sin or something very similar should not be done. Most of the time people appear to be in hyprocrisy because they are truly battling against a temptation and then fall to it. It’s a difference of intent that only God can see clearly with in someone’s heart. That’s why accusing people of it is bad form in that you are claiming that you are sure of the intent of the accused and making the assumption that it is quite evil.

The sin itself should be enough to point out or accused upon anyone and be done with charity. Claiming anyone is in hyprocrisy is almost never charitable.

In our fallen state I think ourselves quite cabable of being in a very high state of grace one moment and slip into a sin the next. That is why St. Paul exorts us to pray continually because we are constantly under tempation and are able to slip into a venial sin the moment we stray from the immediate presents of God.

 

[fhansen]

I think true hyprocrisy is a serious and special case of purposely planning to commit a sin while professing that the same sin or something very similar should not be done. Most of the time people appear to be in hyprocrisy because they are truly battling against a temptation and then fall to it. It’s a difference of intent that only God can see clearly with in someone’s heart. That’s why accusing people of it is bad form in that you are claiming that you are sure of the intent of the accused and making the assumption that it is quite evil.

The sin itself should be enough to point out or accused upon anyone and be done with charity. Claiming anyone is in hyprocrisy is almost never charitable.

In our fallen state I think ourselves quite cabable of being in a very high state of grace one moment and slip into a sin the next. That is why St. Paul exorts us to pray continually because we are constantly under tempation and are able to slip into a venial sin the moment we stray from the immediate presents of God.

I disagree in general. Hypocrisy-not being true to one’s self- whether on a high or low level, is common to fallen man- a matter of pride/ego that we all deal with.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, of course, grace and sin are mutually exclusive; grace counters sin. The act of the Atonement is a demonstration of sheer grace-of light-entering the world while man preferred darkness, preferring his sin-it’s God working here in and through us while we’re yet sinners: “where sin abounds grace abounds” (Rom 5:20) -but for the ultimate purpose of overcoming sin, of bringing light to flood that darkness. And self-professions or posturings of being grace-filled are often nothing more or less than instances of plain old everyday human hypocrisy.

Thanks.
Yes grace over comes sin, but we still fall into sin. I’m not thinking about small sins, veinal sin, but mortal sin. Sin that if a person has been educated and knows what the church teachs about mortal sin and grace, they can think that they have recieved grace, and they know then that what their action towards another person would cause harm mentally or physcially to the other, they still fall into mortal sin.
I thought almost that, sin can win over grace sometimes, because the will of the person is weak, they haven’t let grace work within them?
A&E had grace but fell, so humans were always going to fall, the first two parents are the example of this. So could they really have been any way supernatural different to us, no, I don’t think.
Only Mary was free from sin and Jesus himself.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t bother trying to remain in grace, but do we (myself included) understand what grace does or how it should work, how to be open to it so it fills us.