Adam & Logic

[Roscoe_Turner]

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

I was just commenting on your explanation of the atonement. I’m asking, If Jesus’ Death is an Atonement, to whom does He atone? It seems to be to Himself. Do you also find the notion of God atoning to Himself bizarre?

 

[Aloysium]

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

I’d say I am trying to become a more loving person and to ultimately behold Truth face to face.

When I read:

an idea I’m working on that the image of God was taken from the Kings and rulers that everyone in that time would have known

or

They need sinners in the pews to fill the coffers.

I hear someone

• drifting further from God and focussing on the dirt, the seamy side of human nature
• leading to the view that sin is the primary motivator in man rather than a tendency towards the good
• and thus becoming cynical and angry about a seeming loss of goodness in the world
  (something like that)

Were is this all leading?
It all boils down to a matter of seeking Him.
One may or may not gain understanding along the way, but one will know God.
Try just for understanding, one will find neither, which is strong motivating to search for Him. So, there is always hope.

 

[Aloysium]

I was just commenting on your explanation of the atonement. I’m asking, If Jesus’ Death is an Atonement, to whom does He atone? It seems to be to Himself. Do you also find the notion of God atoning to Himself bizarre?

Atonement is not a concept I am very familiar with. It is a word that I associate most with Yom Kippur. I tried to get onto the online Catholic Encyclopedia, but it won’t open.
I see Christ taking our sins onto Himself during confession, and paying the price for them so that we might be saved. It has to be paid; someone has to do the time. The moral system is in place as long as the universe exists. Undoing it would mean undoing everything.
But, He is raised as we, in His mercy, will be also.
:twocents:

 

[oldcelt]

I’d say I am trying to become a more loving person and to ultimately behold Truth face to face.

When I read:

or

I hear someone

• drifting further from God and focussing on the dirt, the seamy side of human nature
• leading to the view that sin is the primary motivator in man rather than a tendency towards the good
• and thus becoming cynical and angry about a seeming loss of goodness in the world
  (something like that)

Were is this all leading?
It all boils down to a matter of seeking Him.
One may or may not gain understanding along the way, but one will know God.
Try just for understanding, one will find neither, which is strong motivating to search for Him. So, there is always hope.

I’m sorry you have gotten that impression that I am warring against man. As a historian, I am hoping to set them free from the same people that Jesus chastised in the temple with one real addition…those who promote the illogical nature of God. The one who lets innocent children die horrible deaths and his followers say it is all good.
They have managed to use fear to keep the masses in line and in the pews for centuries by preaching things that make no sense to anyone who takes the time to explore a potential dark side.It is the exploited people that I want to help. Nothing grand scale…family and friends will be enough and many are already there.

So far as my relationship with God…it’s really fine. It just isn’t the God you have chosen to worship. Except for my health, it’s all pretty good.

 

[grannymh]

I was just commenting on your explanation of the atonement. I’m asking, If Jesus’ Death is an Atonement, to whom does He atone? It seems to be to Himself. Do you also find the notion of God atoning to Himself bizarre?

Naturally, on this thread, the notion of God atoning to Himself is bizarre because it excludes or ignores the basic concept of this thread.

My obvious suggestion is that anyone who is interested in that “notion” should take it to a different thread where it can be addressed adequately. Thank you.
FYI – post one.
"In my humble opinion, it is logical, given** the human nature that you and I possess**, that Adam existed as explained by the Catholic Church.
Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

Because the Catholic Church holds that a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions (simplified description) does in fact exist–the presupposition for this thread is God as Creator exists. "

Please, please look at the words in bold. The human nature that you and I possess is the main element of this thread. We are not talking about God atoning to God because the essential “atonement” refers to human nature which does exist on planet earth. For general information, God is considered as existing beyond planet earth. Please refer to the simplified description of God in post one. Basically, God is a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions. In common language God is super-natural.

Next, please, please look at post one where it says "as explained by the Catholic Church. Source:* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

When it comes to human nature, I am not interested in re-inventing the wheel. The Catholic Church presents reasonable explanations about the unique human nature. Thank you. There are reasonable logical or philosophical deductions regarding God’s relationship with His human creation in this thread. Most have been simply presented as probable possibilities with the intention of including them in our exploration of Adam who is a human being.

As for the word “atonement”, excluding the human who, how, what, when, where, and why misses the whole situation of the relationship between divinity and humanity – which, by the way, follows from post one’s presumption, premise, or axiom “God as Creator exists”. Please note that this thread explores the relationship between divinity and humanity, originally and currently. If anyone wants to explore the limited, restrictive notion of God atoning to Himself, please do so elsewhere.

Thank you.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The notion of atonement is wrapped up with the notion of Adam and Original Sin. You yourself brought the topic to discussion in post #446

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

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

Where I see that it ties into Adam as a logical proposition is:

Through the original sin, Adam’s physical nature was changed and therefore inheritable to his offspring as proposed by St.Thomas Aquinas in De Malo.

Briefly, one problem with that notion is why original sin is transferable but other sin is not. All offenses are against God, what differentiates, original as transferable. It isn’t Catholic teaching that wicked people have wicked children.

Jesus is seen as “new Adam.” Jesus’ sacrifice is seen to atone for that original sin by Adam. By dying He is said to restore the damage caused by original sin. Anselm said it was honor that was offended, Aquinas said it was God’s justice.

If God is atoning to himself and He possesses infinite power, the atonement should be complete. Or perhaps God’s intention was for us to fall and have our finite natures. The fall was the means to that end. But if we are to believe that God is all powerful and only a God/Man could atone, the atonement wouldn’t be halfway.

The more logical explanation to me, at least, is that biologically we are animals just like all other animals and our nature is that of every other animal. We are mortal as our protohuman ancestors were. Biologically that makes logical sense but not necessarily theologically, but I think a case can be made. Theologically we need something to be saved from in order for a savior to make sense. Adam gives us that reason, as the first man he is the first sinner. Eve actually, but Adam gets the focus.

We inherit the effects of his sin. The privation of the state of grace that Adam lived in. Jesus is said to restore that state of grace in that we have access to it after our death, where Adam had it while living. How is restored? By atoning for the sin of Adam. This is why it comes into the picture. To whom does Jesus atone? It was an offense against God that Adam was guilty of, so the atonement was to God. We have Jesus as God, atoning to God. It’s a closed system.

The implication of God atoning to God are either that God is subject to the system, meaning God has to play with in a certain set of perimeters. Which is a limit to His power, meaning his power is limited not omnipotent. This isn’t Catholic teaching.

Or we can say that Jesus is lesser than the Father. Which Jesus does say (John 14:28). Which carries other theological implications, that the Trinty isn’t equally God in it’s three personhoods, Jesus with his human nature is beneath the Father. Which isn’t Catholic teaching.

There are other theological explanations to explore but the more logical explanation is we have two conflicting desires biologically, as social animals we have sometimes conflicting desires. Some are socially driven that benefit the group and desires for the self, that might not be beneficial to the group. Jesus shows us through His example of self sacrifice that the benefit of the group supersedes the desire of the individual.

Adam isn’t necessary to explain our mortal nature nor that the needs of the group supersede the needs of the individual. So I don’t see Adam as logical necessity. You can still keep the notion of “original sin” in that at some point someone must have sinned first. That is what the catechism seems to imply.

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.264 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.265

The original sin, is the sin that we are all still subject to. Selfishness.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The original sin, is the sin that we are all still subject to. Selfishness.

I believe the better word is Pride. Eve wanted to be as God when she bit into the apple.

Pride is at the root of all other sins, including Selfishness.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I think you can be selfish without being prideful but you can’t be prideful without being selfish.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Selfishness is a form of pride … putting oneself before others.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Selfishness is a form of pride … putting oneself before others.

You must first think of yourself before you can think more of yourself than others. Selfishness comes before pride. I think we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18

 

[grannymh]

In keeping with our desire to learn about Adam… and human nature secure within Adam as in one body of one man…

Genesis 1:28 is the second demonstration of the Creator’s extreme love for His human creation. Genesis 1: 31 affirms the goodness of God as it is reflected in the created material world. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, section “Ways of Coming to Know God”, paragraphs 31-35, is especially informative because we often see the beauty of God’s creation.

I often think that the writer of the first three chapters of Genesis was one of the first historical philosophers. Apparently, the Hebrew people, who certainly experienced evil (murder of Abel, Genesis 4: 8) were able to retain the knowledge of God’s super-natural goodness described in the beginning of Genesis.

 

[simpleas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, the way I read it is that God wanted A&E to live forever as human’s with a soul. If Adam knew death, he could only have witness it in the form of animals dying, because animals are not human and don’t have a soul like ours.Plus doesn’t the ccc say that A&E were they only humans around before sin?
If Adam knew what death meant, he still thought it better to sin and lose his gifts, rather than live forever…that was his choice. God takes away his gifts and immortality, or rather Adam lost it.
Christ shows us that through grace we can be raised up back to what Adam and Eve had before the sin?

 

[grannymh]

Ok, the way I read it is that God wanted A&E to live forever as human’s with a soul.

If one only read the first three chapters of Genesis, one could possibly conclude that God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as human’s with a soul. However, stopping at this point leaves out the true purpose of Divine Revelation which continues throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Gospels, and “teaching letters” in the New Testament.

Because one of the previous posts reminded me of a true and false test, I recognized that if we are to use the deductive method of reasoning, we need very clear descriptions of human nature and the Creator’s goal for humankind.

Simpleas,

May I ask you – Is this a sufficient statement for describing God’s plan for humankind – God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as human’s with a soul? My own silly thought is that if Adam and Eve and their descendants were meant to live forever, earth would really be crowded. If the hypotheses “Adam and Eve are the real sole parents of humanity” is to be demonstrated, we need solid statements. We need to dot our i’s and cross our t’s.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…
May I ask you – Is this a sufficient statement for describing God’s plan for humankind – God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as human’s with a soul? My own silly thought is that if Adam and Eve and their descendants were meant to live forever, earth would really be crowded. If the hypotheses “Adam and Eve are the real sole parents of humanity” is to be demonstrated, we need solid statements. We need to dot our i’s and cross our t’s.

GM I am not Simpleas but it is an interesting question.
I believe the most influential Fathers/Doctors never considered Eden to be a final “resting place” for humanity if there had been no fall. It was in fact always a prelim “staging area” for something greater Fall or no Fall. Their immortality was always partly extrinsic to their nature (Augustine and Aquinas both state Adam and Eve would have aged even if they had not fell…and the fruit of the Tree of Life had to be regularly eaten of to avoid the death that aging intrinsically leads to). A time would have come when they would have been “Translated” (as per Mary) to heaven. That Translation would not have been “death” (which is the separation of body and soul) but perhaps more like the fate of those still alive on the last day (“they will meet Jesus in the Air.”)

Re "…I recognized that if we are to use the deductive method of reasoning, we need very clear descriptions of human nature and the Creator’s goal for humankind. "

this seems to me a tautology. We do not really know the full capabilities of “human nature” and what we do know comes from reason and Revelation (which includes our limited understanding of “the Creator’s goal for humankind.”) So the argument seems circular and doesn’t really go anywhere. We just won’t know until we see “what no eye has seen…”

 

[grannymh]

GM I am not Simpleas but it is an interesting question.
I believe the most influential Fathers/Doctors never considered Eden to be a final “resting place” for humanity if there had been no fall. It was in fact always a prelim “staging area” for something greater Fall or no Fall. Their immortality was always partly extrinsic to their nature (Augustine and Aquinas both state Adam and Eve would have aged even if they had not fell…and the fruit of the Tree of Life had to be regularly eaten of to avoid the death that aging intrinsically leads to). A time would have come when they would have been “Translated” (as per Mary) to heaven. That Translation would not have been “death” (which is the separation of body and soul) but perhaps more like the fate of those still alive on the last day (“they will meet Jesus in the Air.”)

Re "…I recognized that if we are to use the deductive method of reasoning, we need very clear descriptions of human nature and the Creator’s goal for humankind. "

this seems to me a tautology. We do not really know the full capabilities of “human nature” and what we do know comes from reason and Revelation (which includes our limited understanding of “the Creator’s goal for humankind.”) So the argument seems circular and doesn’t really go anywhere. We just won’t know until we see “what no eye has seen…”

Thank you. I appreciate info from the Fathers/Doctors because it is obvious that they have contributed to the public formulation of Catholic Doctrines. (CCC, Index of Citations, starting on page 689; Ecclesiastical Writers, page 741)

We do have a clear description of human nature, because simple observation can discern the basic elements of human nature which are a decomposing material anatomy and an intellective spiritual element or principle. The evidence of “reason” is what distinguishes human nature as the peerless pinnacle of creation.

I will yield that I should have said clear *basic *description of human nature.

 

[simpleas]

If one only read the first three chapters of Genesis, one could possibly conclude that God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as human’s with a soul. However, stopping at this point leaves out the true purpose of Divine Revelation which continues throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Gospels, and “teaching letters” in the New Testament.

Because one of the previous posts reminded me of a true and false test, I recognized that if we are to use the deductive method of reasoning, we need very clear descriptions of human nature and the Creator’s goal for humankind.

Simpleas,

May I ask you – Is this a sufficient statement for describing God’s plan for humankind – God wanted Adam and Eve to live forever as human’s with a soul? My own silly thought is that if Adam and Eve and their descendants were meant to live forever, earth would really be crowded. If the hypotheses “Adam and Eve are the real sole parents of humanity” is to be demonstrated, we need solid statements. We need to dot our i’s and cross our t’s.

I was trying to answer what I thought your quote meant : There is no division of body and soul after our resurrection. This is signified in the above quote “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity.”

If we are to be raised from our own bodily deaths to live in the next new world (body and spirit) then to me that is the whole purpose of Jesus’ ressurrection, to show how we can be. But in the beginning it always was (A&E had immortality until sin) So when I read :

3 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

When the sin accures :

In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

It sounds to me that Gods plan was for humans to be spiritual human beings, without sin as we now know it, as for living forever, God wouldn’t allow man to eat from the tree of life and live forever in the state of sin.
I don’t know about the earth being over populated if no one ever died, in my imagination we would be very different humans if we had grace, justice and self mastery.

I don’t seem to be on the same page as everyone else with how they understand Genesis1-3.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We do have a clear description of human nature, because simple observation can discern the basic elements of human nature which are a decomposing material anatomy and an intellective spiritual element or principle. The evidence of “reason” is what distinguishes human nature as the peerless pinnacle of creation.

I will yield that I should have said clear *basic *description of human nature.

Hmmmnnn. Still not so sure. I have always felt that the great weakness/strength of Scholasticism (responsible for Catholic heavy reliance on the concept of clearly delineated static natures) is its reliance on the concept of nature/substance which in practice uses the supporting concepts of genus/species to separate out one nature from another. Thus humans are “rational animals” which doesn’t seem to have a lot of solid content to play with or make deductions from by itself.

The other problem is that “being human” actually involves possessing a lot of potentials we cannot actuate unaided. And if our nature can be diminished (“wounded”) then it can be increased also. Thus the idea of a fixed static nature in fact starts to break down when we start talking about “divinisation”, “wounds”, “praeter-natural”, external gifts needed for our “basic nature” to work as intended.

If we do not know what “extensions” God can “add” (or maybe they are “buried” and unknown to us) to our nature through his gifts (yes we know some of them via Revelation) then do we really know even “basic” human nature? To me “nature/substance” is one of those “global” things. There is no “basic” - one either understands the whole thing or not at all. Like"triangle", once you understand its nature everything you can say about it is pretty obvious and known.

I am currently in an IT careeer. I thought I knew all there was to know about my HP Probook laptop which I have had for 2 years. Then I accidentally discovered a connection socket on it that wasn’t quite what I thought it was. Some research and I realised my laptop was even more powerful than I thought it was. It can do all sorts of things via this connection that I never realised existed. Its “nature” (yet untapped) is far greater than I realised. In fact it could be said I didn’t really know its nature - so powerful are the implications of this “small” thing I never realised before.

I feel the same thing about human nature. On the other side of death we will discover what human nature is really about and why the things about Christianity that seem contradictory or stupid now are the only way things could be. Which means we have to admit we don’t well understand human nature this side of the grave at all - not even “basic” human nature. Its all provisional and maybe even revisional.
But that’s just me. I accept it makes theology very difficult if we hold “nature” so lightly. Which is probably why I find more solace in the apophatic way than the phatic way.

So I am not sure “basic nature” is a helpful distinction in this particular discussion when it comes to use of “deductive reasoning” to learn more about Adam and Eve. Deductive reasoning cannot tell us anymore than what we already implicity understand is contained in “human nature”. If we only have a “basic” understanding then we cannot progress beyond the usual “basic” deductions.

What would you articulate a “clear, basic description of human nature” to be?

I suggest that whatever description you may come up with it is already based on an induction from prior more primary data (experience or revelation) and we would do better to make inferences direct from that more primary datum rather than hope that “deduction” can get us further.

"Because one of the previous posts reminded me of a true and false test, I recognized that if we are to use the deductive method …"

What are you meaning here anyway…are you referring to Popper’s hypothesis?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

I do not believe it can be held that Adam knew he was always going to die even if he had not Fallen.

Death is the separation of body and soul.
Many of the Fathers/Doctors held that an aging and just Adam would have eventually been “Translated” to heaven body and soul intact (thus no death). Regardless of whether or not this is true, Adam certainly had no personal inkling of this future possibility (just as he had no prior inkling of Redemptive possibilities if he disobeyed).

Had Adam not eaten regularly of the Tree of Life (to remedy the degenerative effects of aging) he would have died. But not to so eat would have been a sin so such death would have been a result of “Falling” in any case.

It is interesting to note that Adam could have Fallen by either:
(a) eating of the Tree of the KOGAE
(b) not-eating of the Tree of Life.

Also, Adam’s “understanding” of death would likely have been incomplete (and therefore lacking in a full comprehension of all the consequences) because it was purely intellectual and speculative. Death of an animal (temporary soul) is different from that of a human (enduring soul).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was trying to answer what I thought your quote meant : There is no division of body and soul after our resurrection. This is signified in the above quote “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity.”

If we are to be raised from our own bodily deaths to live in the next new world (body and spirit) then to me that is the whole purpose of Jesus’ ressurrection, to show how we can be. But in the beginning it always was (A&E had immortality until sin)…:

There is no division of body and soul after our resurrection.
I believe the CCC is being misunderstood here. In fact there is no division in this life either.
We are not souls/angels imprisioned in bodies as some (Plato, Gnostics etc) have thought. I believe that is all that this CCC phrase means.

…

It sounds to me that Gods plan was for humans to be spiritual human beings, without sin as we now know it. As for living forever, God wouldn’t allow man to eat from the tree of life and live forever in the state of sin.

I believe you are correct but your terminology is confusing.
By “spiritual” I believe you really mean “Holy”.

“Spiritual” more properly means immaterial.
So it cannot be said that God’s plan was for man to be “spiritual” (immaterial) like the angels. Man is called to be holy complete in body and soul.

Also, The Garden of Eden is by no means the same as Heaven.
In Heaven Adam and Eve have the final goal of human happiness - the Beatific Vision.
They did not have this in Eden.

Yes they walked with God, that may be construed as sanctifying grace.
But that is not the Beatific Vision (merely a winning ticket that hasn’t yet been cashed in)