S
simpleas
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
Ok, thanks, no worries, look forward to discussing it when you can.It is my understanding that part of the logical approach is to examine other possibilities. Your three points do fit in with this thread’s discussion.
I so want to answer that Adam is the worst, because I am a secret feminist.
Seriously, it would be good to discuss the points from Adam’s position. However, I may not be able to get back to you right away.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good point to bring up. See if this explanation is helpful.
The formal axioms are:
“God as Creator exists.”
“God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.”
I chose Creator over all the possible designations because of Genesis 1: 1 and the Catholic doctrines of original sin which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. Yet, regardless of my personal reasoning, God as Creator is a basic axiom or an obvious objective truth since the world and ourselves exist in time and space.
The second axiom gives one of the powers of God as Creator. The verb interact is stronger, broader, and more personal than communicates for example. While this may not be obvious, “can interact” says that God is entirely independent. He can do something. He is not required by some outside force to do something. “Can interact with His creation” implies that He is not restricted in any way. Thomism, as a philosophy, presents how God interacts with His creation because it is His creation.
The verb interact also implies a reciprocal response. I made sure that you and I are part of the interaction.
God interacted with human persons long before the Bible came into existence. He interacts with humans who have never been introduced to Catholicism. In fact, God immediately interacts at each and every human conception by creating our spiritual soul – which is why we can claim that all of us are in the image of God. (CCC 355-368)
I started with two very broad axioms so that no one can possibly be left out. The logic of Adam has to include all humanity because all humanity descended from him.
G
grannymh
Guest
When we approach the “creation story” in the first three chapters of Genesis, we need to be sure of what it is that we are looking for.Hi, I hope it’s ok to ask a few question’s about adam and eve on this forum that doesn’t stray from your actual discussion.
Please correct me on anything as i’m searching/trying to learn more on the creation story, and i know most answer’s will only come from God, but I’m interested in poster’s idea’s/teachings
- can we be sure of the story of eve eating from the tree of knowledge and then passing it to adam to eat also? That makes eve the sinner first, so why do we regard adam as the worst of the two?
2.Could there be another sinful reason other than the forbidden fruit story, as there is mention of nephilim people/angels?- After adam and eve had passed from this life and God saw all the evil in men’s hearts he regretted having made man, but found favor with Noah and his family, so the ark story is told. Why then didn’t sin die with adam and eve and a new fresh human beginning made in Noah (as Noah would still be a sinner).
Thanks for your help
Paragraph 390 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, will help us decide what it is that we really want to know.
**“390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.”
Here are some suggestions, expressed as questions, for different topics in this paragraph. These questions are not in any particular order nor do all of them need to be answered.
Not only is a road map needed for the “creation story of Adam and Eve”, one has to choose which, of many roads, one will try first…knowing that at any point one can switch to another road.
- What is the primeval event and why would it have to take place at the beginning of human history?
- What or which is the figurative language? Examples?
- What would be the reason for figurative language?
- What is the Divine Revelation which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis?
- How can something be freely committed?
- What is meant by the original fault?
- What is the importance of first parents?
- Because Catholicism is based on Jesus Christ being the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, how is He implied in CCC 390?
S
simpleas
Guest
Hi, ok I’m glad you don’t expect me to answer these question’s as i wouldn’t know where to start…honestly! (if anyone else wants to, be my guest!)
When you state we need to know what we are looking for about the creation story, for me i need a deeper understanding of sin, that is to say I accept I am a sinner, I just haven’t fully understood how or why after all christ has accomplished since the fall, we are still in sin. So i thought learning and discovering the creation story would be the place to start.
Ok, so Genesis 1 tells us how and what God created out of nothing, also mankind. Second account explains how man and woman were created, and they had a holy nature, how they communicated with God I’m not sure, somehow God tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge, thats one thing I wonder about, they must have had a form of free will and intelligence to make that decision to disobey God and take the word of satan?
How long it was in years before God created man,(after he had made heaven and earth and animals etc) and how long man was alone before woman is made is anyones guess, that’s if it happened that way! Dare I say God created woman first and then woman through God gave birth to man…
When I asked, could there have been another type of wrong that happened, I sometimes think the story of the forbidden fruit is a “nice” way of telling of the evil sin satan tempted eve with, to me it seems there was more to it than just eating a fruit from a tree, of course God would be upset with his children for disobeying him, but then to send his children along with the tempter out of the garden to remain in sin ever since is hard for me to understand. But who am i to question God, and i’m not, just need to seek knowledge myself.
Sorry for rambling…
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for rambling. It is so good to know I am not alone in that area.Hi, ok I’m glad you don’t expect me to answer these question’s as i wouldn’t know where to start…honestly! (if anyone else wants to, be my guest!)
When you state we need to know what we are looking for about the creation story, for me i need a deeper understanding of sin, that is to say I accept I am a sinner, I just haven’t fully understood how or why after all christ has accomplished since the fall, we are still in sin. So i thought learning and discovering the creation story would be the place to start.
Ok, so Genesis 1 tells us how and what God created out of nothing, also mankind. Second account explains how man and woman were created, and they had a holy nature, how they communicated with God I’m not sure, somehow God tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge, thats one thing I wonder about, they must have had a form of free will and intelligence to make that decision to disobey God and take the word of satan?
How long it was in years before God created man,(after he had made heaven and earth and animals etc) and how long man was alone before woman is made is anyones guess, that’s if it happened that way! Dare I say God created woman first and then woman through God gave birth to man…
When I asked, could there have been another type of wrong that happened, I sometimes think the story of the forbidden fruit is a “nice” way of telling of the evil sin satan tempted eve with, to me it seems there was more to it than just eating a fruit from a tree, of course God would be upset with his children for disobeying him, but then to send his children along with the tempter out of the garden to remain in sin ever since is hard for me to understand. But who am i to question God, and i’m not, just need to seek knowledge myself.
Sorry for rambling…
Before I take my turn. I want to clarify something in this comment from your post.
“… to me it seems there was more to it than just eating a fruit from a tree, of course God would be upset with his children for disobeying him, but then to send his children along with the tempter out of the garden to remain in sin ever since is hard for me to understand.”
You are so right that Adam’s sin was more than just eating organic fruit from a special tree. Genesis 3: 6. Eve’s response to Satan’s temptation: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom…” Wisdom here refers to the total knowledge of God. Knowledge of all good and all evil would be godly knowledge because what else is there besides good and evil.
At this point, I have to point out that Catholic teaching places full blame for Original Sin on Adam. Eve did commit a personal sin of disobedience when she ate the fruit; however, it was Adam’s personal sin of disobedience which shattered their relationship with our Creator.
Yet, God so loved Adam and Eve and us, because we would be their descendants, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature, purely without any sin attached to it, so that in Adam’s place He could be obedient and thus bring about salvation and the great graces of the Sacraments.
So that I do not misinterpret you, I want to make sure that you are keeping in mind the Sacrament of Baptism. Sometimes, because it is so long since my Baptism, I overlook the fact that Baptism erases Original Sin. What does remain is a wounded human nature which is inclined to lust of the flesh, greed, and wrongful pride. We can get so bogged down with Original Sin concept, that we fail to look up to Christ hanging bleeding on the cross. Here is where He infinitely atoned for Original Sin. He literally opened the gates of heaven.
As you mentioned the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, I agree that most people wonder about it. Adam and Eve did have intelligence and free will. What is often missing is the Catholic information as to why this tree played such a crucial role in the creation story.
Now I am rambling and I win because I am rambling back to your first thoughts about needing a deeper meaning of sin.
I wonder if it would help if we keep Original Sin, committed by Adam-- what is the smilie for ha, ha,-- separate from our own personal sins.In both modes of logic, deductive (philosophical) reasoning and inductive (scientific) method there is plenty of work going on behind the scenes. Accepting the fact that we are personal sinners is a good place to start because then the Good Shepherd can pick us up and place us close to His heart. Then we can question God.
Note: there is still a lot of “behind the scenes” work, questions, and answers in both our posts and the previous posts.
W
WmJackP
Guest
Because humans are highly sentient, and, thus capable of foresight,contemplating life’s vicissitudes, and, even their own demise, and, --as you put it-- capable also of waxing philosophically, it is also possible that humans invented religion to provide solace and succor not to mention powerful impetus for conforming conduct to norms suited for civilized people to live together.
W
WmJackP
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
A couple of things wrong here. It seems that the penchant for religious belief has been universal througout all societies throughout history, at least according to Blessed John Henry Newman, G.K Chesterton and others. Given that the phenomenon was nearly universal, it seems just as likely that it reflects a latent memory of God’s first Self Revelation to Adam and Eve and their first children. It is also equally possible that some cultures were able to see that such a Supreme Being must exist, even though their concept of such a Being was confused.But with the calling of Abraham, God’s existence became more known through the Israelites. I always find it amusing to see how easily such awareness has been swept aside following the " Age of Enlightenment. "
And finally we have the founding of the Catholic Faith, beginning with Christ and the Apostles, followed by the Fathers of the Church, and 2,000 years of super intellects like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Cajetan ( Tommaso de Vio Gaetani ), Blsd. John Henry Newman. Quite an impressive list of really giant intellects and exemplary human beings. Doesn’t it seem at least likely that they were and are correct? Can the non-believing universe of super intellects compare with these holy, super intellects? In whom would you rather place your confidence and faith?
Linus2nd
D
Dorothy
Guest
I would like to respond to #1…Hi, I hope it’s ok to ask a few question’s about adam and eve on this forum that doesn’t stray from your actual discussion.
Please correct me on anything as i’m searching/trying to learn more on the creation story, and i know most answer’s will only come from God, but I’m interested in poster’s idea’s/teachings
- can we be sure of the story of eve eating from the tree of knowledge and then passing it to adam to eat also? That makes eve the sinner first, so why do we regard adam as the worst of the two?
2.Could there be another sinful reason other than the forbidden fruit story, as there is mention of nephilim people/angels?- After adam and eve had passed from this life and God saw all the evil in men’s hearts he regretted having made man, but found favor with Noah and his family, so the ark story is told. Why then didn’t sin die with adam and eve and a new fresh human beginning made in Noah (as Noah would still be a sinner).
Thanks for your help
I went to a retreat for ladies several years ago and we were given this explanation. Since Adam was the head, he could have said no to Eve’s persuasion to eat of the fruit of the tree, but he did not.
G
grannymh
Guest
Yes. From the little I have studied, I would say that many ancient cultures most likely invented religions to provide solace and succor. Also many ancient cultures invented religions in order to get good crops and fine wives. Now, if you consider utilitarianism as an early religion in ancient times, that would be a powerful way of getting a specific, geographical community of civilized people to live together. In addition, there would have been a religion invented to preserve the details of human origin and human nature plus relating the interaction of a spiritual Creator with the pinnacle of His creation, the highly sentient, rational person.
What the above actually demonstrates, thank you for bringing it up, is that universally man can be called a religious being. I would have eventually used this in support of the axiom “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.” The other axiom is “God as Creator exists”. Both axioms have the presupposition that God exists. Those who like to discuss God’s existence can do so in another more appropriate thread. Or they can follow the theatre perspective of the “willing suspension of disbelief” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
and sit back and enjoy the show.
You will have to have patience with me because I really like the description “highly sentient”. Normally, sentient refers to the material/physical. In practical life, it seems to me that ancient humans were so highly sentient that they had the capability to sense something spiritual that existed beyond the material environment outside of themselves. Without this innate human capability, there would be no way humans could invent religion since religion is based on some kind of spiritual knowledge.
Please note: I will never imply that human’s knowledge of the spiritual is always accurate. What I do imply is that humans have the necessary or essential capability of recognizing that the spiritual exists and that we can interact with spiritual known as God, the Creator.
The axiom about God interacting implies some kind of response or action on the part of both parties. Universally, humans still have the capability to know, and perhaps understand, a spiritual world which is not restricted by our own material world.
If one wishes, one could always argue that it is human imagination which accounts for the above demonstration. Regardless, even imagination (thinking beyond our physical senses) is possible because it is part of our unique human nature.
Human nature is so unique that one has to logically consider an unique source.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Don’t you think that " suspension of disbelief " is a two edged sword? Isn’t this a tool of the Sophist to get the listener, reader, viewer to " suspend belief ? " Thus causing confusion in the minds of the unwary.
Linus2nde
G
grannymh
Guest
I can understand your point. I have a friend, far more educated than I can hope to be, who declared that what her favorite author wrote was true because it was published in a book.
Talk about confusion as to what can be actually presented in a book.The link I provided does refer more to literature with a brief nod to the theatre. However, my experience with a " willing suspension of disbelief" was in the theatre where people knew ahead of time what they were paying for. Special effects can certainly fool people. But in a live theatre, people should know that Peter Pan does not fly on his own.
I did notice that the link dropped the word “willing” which is key in my mind as people find their seats in the audience. Thus, I can agree with the two edged sword.
Sorry, but I am starting to laugh about my proposal. Imagine me saying to an atheist – pretend you are a theist!
W
WmJackP
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
Aspire to the Truth.
Beyond the idea of those “natural processes” is the true reality of you yourself in this world.
What is that? Don’t settle for just concepts; let those follow once you truly know.
You can fall in line with the modern “mythology” of the material world; some people are happy with the blue pill.
S
simpleas
Guest
Usually, isn’t it the simplest solution rather than the more exotic and complex solution which turns out to be correct. If so, then isn’t it more likely that these rituals and sets of beliefs comprising religion arose through natural processes rather than as the result of the intervention of a super being with all of the trapping ascribed to it?
I think i understand what you say, (please correct me if i’m wrong) I personnally believe there is a creator, but my thinking mind has recently spread over many possabilities for what/who this creator is. We have so many different faith’s today, all have their own belief “system” each their own path, which they believe is the correct way to love, praise, understand God, but aren’t we all praising the one God anyway? Just differently…There can only be one God so we must be?
Human’s have played a massive part in teaching about God, but there has always been some intervention from God, how much of what we know up to now is of God or Man i don’t know?
I think i understand what you say, (please correct me if i’m wrong) I personnally believe there is a creator, but my thinking mind has recently spread over many possabilities for what/who this creator is. We have so many different faith’s today, all have their own belief “system” each their own path, which they believe is the correct way to love, praise, understand God, but aren’t we all praising the one God anyway? Just differently…There can only be one God so we must be?
Human’s have played a massive part in teaching about God, but there has always been some intervention from God, how much of what we know up to now is of God or Man i don’t know?
S
simpleas
Guest
Thanks.
So then i ask, if adam was in union with God, although without knowledge of good/evil how could he know he was sinning by the temption?
sorry, just more questions pop up in my mind!
A
Aloysium
Guest
God told him not to eat the fruit and he ate it cause it looked nice, seemed good to eat and he believed it would give him wisdom. He knew he was saying no to God and yes to himself, his wants and the snake.Thanks.
So then i ask, if adam was in union with God, although without knowledge of good/evil how could he know he was sinning by the temption?
sorry, just more questions pop up in my mind!
S
simpleas
Guest
ThanksThank you for rambling. It is so good to know I am not alone in that area.
Before I take my turn. I want to clarify something in this comment from your post.
“… to me it seems there was more to it than just eating a fruit from a tree, of course God would be upset with his children for disobeying him, but then to send his children along with the tempter out of the garden to remain in sin ever since is hard for me to understand.”
You are so right that Adam’s sin was more than just eating organic fruit from a special tree. Genesis 3: 6. Eve’s response to Satan’s temptation: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom…” Wisdom here refers to the total knowledge of God. Knowledge of all good and all evil would be godly knowledge because what else is there besides good and evil.
At this point, I have to point out that Catholic teaching places full blame for Original Sin on Adam. Eve did commit a personal sin of disobedience when she ate the fruit; however, it was Adam’s personal sin of disobedience which shattered their relationship with our Creator.
Yet, God so loved Adam and Eve and us, because we would be their descendants, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature, purely without any sin attached to it, so that in Adam’s place He could be obedient and thus bring about salvation and the great graces of the Sacraments.
So that I do not misinterpret you, I want to make sure that you are keeping in mind the Sacrament of Baptism. Sometimes, because it is so long since my Baptism, I overlook the fact that Baptism erases Original Sin. What does remain is a wounded human nature which is inclined to lust of the flesh, greed, and wrongful pride. We can get so bogged down with Original Sin concept, that we fail to look up to Christ hanging bleeding on the cross. Here is where He infinitely atoned for Original Sin. He literally opened the gates of heaven.
As you mentioned the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, I agree that most people wonder about it. Adam and Eve did have intelligence and free will. What is often missing is the Catholic information as to why this tree played such a crucial role in the creation story.
Now I am rambling and I win because I am rambling back to your first thoughts about needing a deeper meaning of sin.
In both modes of logic, deductive (philosophical) reasoning and inductive (scientific) method there is plenty of work going on behind the scenes. Accepting the fact that we are personal sinners is a good place to start because then the Good Shepherd can pick us up and place us close to His heart. Then we can question God.
Note: there is still a lot of “behind the scenes” work, questions, and answers in both our posts and the previous posts.
Yes I try to keep in mind about baptism, only recently though as i’d forgotten just what the sacrament actually did! (just thinking baptism was a blessing and welcoming into Gods family) I’m refreshing my own informed mind, or rather slighty uninformed! ha.
Baptism doesn’t stop us sinning, so its like a preparation for keeping us from sin until we learn right from wrong and are capable of making a informed and free choice. (is that right?)
G
grannymh
Guest
Speaking of Occam’s Razor, here is an interesting link.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Re: “If so, then isn’t it more likely that these rituals and sets of beliefs comprising religion arose through natural processes rather than as the result of the intervention of a super being with all of the trapping ascribed to it.”
Because humans have always and are continuing to form [spiritual] religions, this demonstrates that humans have the capability to recognize the spiritual also known as super-natural. This is one of the supporting truths for the axiom “God can interact with His creation, including the pinnacle of creation, the human person.”
Your post 211 introduces the discussion of the intervention of a super being with all of the trapping ascribed to it. Going back to my post 208, I allowed all kinds of possible gods. Thus, it seems we have reached a watershed where we have to choose either a specific group of gods or a single god. Since you have “super being” in the singular, let’s start with a single God. You can tell me latter what you have in mind when you referred to “all of the trapping ascribed to it.”
Since Simpleas is interested in information about the Creation Story and, coincidentally, Adam is in this thread’s title, and this OP gets cranky if I don’t get my way
-----would you mind very much if I choose the God as taught by the Catholic Church? One plus for the Catholic Church is that it presents the complete Creation Story in relationship to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Another plus is that it hasn’t caved to secular pressure.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.
God’s intervention in the material/physical world is a given according to the first axiom "God as Creator exists. "Therefore, all creation is subservient to Him. For the purpose of this thread’s logic, God’s direct interaction with the human species is primary over what kind of intervention may have occurred. Putting this priority in the context of post 211, we find that the issue of the Catholic religion’s origin turns on what God reveals.
Interestingly, God first reveals His direct creation of human nature. God places the spiritual principle (rational soul) first in importance. Genesis 1: 27. “God created man in His image; in the divine image He created him; male and female He created them.” Genesis 2: 8. “The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and He placed there the man whom He had formed.” Here we find Adam’s (material anatomy) firmly within the material environment at the same time that he is invited to share in God’s life via being in the image of God. Adam is now seen in his wholeness. This wholeness of Adam’s human nature would be transmitted by propagation.
What is really fascinating is that the definitely non-scientific writer of these first three Genesis chapters was somehow aware of the 20th and 21st century’s science issues of polygenesis. Starting with Genesis 2: 18. “The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” Suitable partner are the operative words. At the time of writing Genesis, there were all kinds of people. Yet, God is not saying that He will pick a suitable partner from among Adam’s tribe. Nor is there any indication of random mating with wild animals which could have been close in anatomical structure, like our current chimp cousins. Genesis 2: 21. “So the Lord God cast a deep sleep on the man…” Whether or not this part is figurative or real does not really matter. What matters is that somehow the writer knew that Adam and his partner did not descend from some common ancestor. To make that point clear, the writer, in God’s place, put Adam into a deep sleep; thus preventing Adam from any participation in finding some kind of an anatomically similar mate in his environment. Genesis 2: 23. For his part, Adam immediately recognized that Eve shared his nature which means that she too shared in God’s life.
Going back to Genesis 1: 28. "God blessed them, saying: “be fertile and multiply…” we know that the blessing, while meaning many things, started off with two people, original founders of humanity, being blessed with the same nature and the same goal to share God’s life in eternal joy.
- Status